1 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 123,440

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

S TATE OF K ANSAS , Appellee ,

v.

A LFRED D. D ICKSON J R

. , Appellant

.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; J EFFREY S YRIOS , judge. Opinion filed November 12 , 2021. Affirmed.

Submitted by the parties for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21

- 6820(g) and (h).

B efore A TCHESON , P.J., C LINE and H URST , JJ.

P ER C URIAM : Defendant Alfred D. Dickson appeals the decision of the Sedgwick County District Court revo king his probation and imposi ng his underlying sentence. We granted Dickson ' s motion for summary disposition under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (202 1 Kan. S. Ct. R. 4 8 ). On appeal, Dickson argues that the district court erred in revoking his probation because sanctions remained a reasonable alternative. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Dickson ple a d ed guilty to c riminal p ossession of a w eap on by a c onvicted f elon, a severity l evel 8 nonperson felony. Dickson committed th is offense in December 2018. In2 September 2019, t he district court sentenced Dickson to 18 months of probation with an underlying prison term of 17 months.

Less than two months after sentencing , Dickson violated his probation by breaking curfew, failing to report to his intensive supervision officer , and failing to attend

t reatment for substance abuse

. The district court allowed him to stay on probation but
mandated t hat he serve a 3

- day jail sanction and restart ed the 18

- month probationary period.

Just d ays after th e violation hearing, Dickson commit ted a d omestic v iolence battery , engaged in criminal d estruction of p roperty, and otherwise display ed assaultive
behavior

. After finding another probation violation, t he district court sanctioned Dickson
with 45 days in jail.

Two months later, Dickson again violated his probation

. At the revocation hearing on September 24, 2020, Dickson admitted to the se violations :

• committing the offense of i nterference with a law enforcement officer ;

• associating with a known gang member ;

• violating curfew ;

• consuming alcohol ;

• assaultive type behavior ;

• violating gang conditions by wearing a red shirt ;

• associating with a convicted felon ; and

⦁ failing to engage in mental health services and substance abuse treatment

.

The district court revoked Dickson ' s probation and order that he serve the underlying
sentence of 1 7 months.3 After a probation violation is established by a preponderance of the evidence, the
district court has the discretion to revoke a defendant ' s probation. State v. Gumfory , 281 Kan. 1168, 1170, 135 P.3d 1191 (2006) . Dickson admitted to the violation s , thereby
establish ing them without an evidentiary hearing . We review the district court ' s decision
to revoke Dickson ' s probation for abuse of discretion. A district court abuses its
discretion when the decision is unreasonable or is based on either a misunderstand ing of the governing law or an error of fact

. State v. Ingham , 308 Kan. 1466, 1469, 430 P.3d 931 (2018)

.

Since 2013 , district courts have had to follow a scheme of intermediate sanctions before revoking a defendant's probation, subject to certain exceptions permitting
immediate revocation. State v. Clapp , 308 Kan. 976, 981

- 82, 425 P.3d 605 (2018)

. Although the statutory framework has been amended from time to time, it has always permitted the district court to revoke a defendant's probation without any intermediary
sanctions if the defendant has committed a felony or a misdemeanor while on probation

. K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22

- 3716(c)( 8 )( A )

.

Here, t he district court did not abuse its discretion. First, K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22

- 3716 (c)(8)(A) gave the district court legal authority to revoke Dickson ' s probation because he admitted to committing a new crime

. Second, Dickson d oes not allege that an
error of fact exists in this case. Finally, t he district court ' s actions were reasonable. This
was Dickson ' s third probation hearing. The district court gave Dickson two chances to
conform to the terms of his probation before ordering him to prison

. During the final probation violation hearing, the district court looked at numerous factors to support its
decisio n including Dickson ' s pretrial issues and lengthy criminal history. The district
court also observed that Dickson had ample time to address his antisocial behavior but
failed to do so

— the intermediate sanctions clearly were not hav ing the intended salutary
effect on Dickson's conduct

.4 Revoking Dickson ' s probation was the district court ' s last resort. Dickson ' s argument on appeal holds no weight legally or factually . The continued use of
intermediate sanctions was not legally required by K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22

- 3716 , and their
use had devolved into an exhausted and ineffective option. We have no doubt other
district courts w ould have taken the same position in revoking Dickson's probation

. There

was no a buse of judicial discretion.

Affirmed.