Court Opinion

ID: 9901847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 17:04:25.98892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:40.786327
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                                           No. 126,126

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

                                       STATE OF KANSAS,
                                           Appellee,

                                                 v.

                              ERICK RAMON GUILLEN-SANCHEZ,
                                       Appellant.

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Appeal from Finney District Court; KRISTI COTT, judge. Opinion filed November 22, 2023.
Affirmed.

       Submitted by the parties for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 21-6820(g) and
(h).

Before CLINE, P.J., WARNER and PICKERING, JJ.

       PER CURIAM: Erick Ramon Guillen-Sanchez appeals the district court's order
revoking his probation and imposing his original prison sentence. Guillen-Sanchez
moved for summary disposition in lieu of briefs under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2023
Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48), and we granted his motion. The State did not respond. Finding no
error, we affirm the district court's judgment.

       Guillen-Sanchez pled no contest to one count of possession of methamphetamine,
in violation of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-5706(a) and (c)(1), and to one count of possession
of drug paraphernalia, in violation of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-5709(b)(1) and (e)(2)(A). In

                                                 1
exchange for his plea, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges and recommend
probation. On August 16, 2017, the district court sentenced Guillen-Sanchez to 28
months' imprisonment but granted probation for 18 months with drug treatment under
K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-6824(b)—known as Senate Bill No. 123 drug treatment.

       One year later, on August 15, 2018, the district court issued a bench warrant based
on allegations that Guillen-Sanchez had violated the terms of his probation. The warrant
was issued after Guillen-Sanchez' probation officer working in intensive supervision
services moved to revoke his probation. His probation officer alleged that Guillen-
Sanchez violated the terms of his probation by testing positive for methamphetamine and
marijuana and by failing to report. Guillen-Sanchez admitted to the violations outlined by
the probation officer. The district court ordered he serve a 3-day intermediate sanction
and extended his probation for 12 months.

       On February 28, 2019, after more allegations of failing to report and multiple
confirmed and admitted positive tests for methamphetamine and marijuana, the probation
officer moved to revoke Guillen-Sanchez' probation. At a probation violation disposition
hearing six months later, the district court noted that Guillen-Sanchez admitted to
violating his probation and the State charging him with a new criminal charge. Under a
plea agreement for Guillen-Sanchez' newest criminal case, the parties agreed to
recommend that he serve a 180-day prison sanction and extend his probation by 18
months. The district court imposed the sanction and ordered Guillen-Sanchez' probation
extended upon his release.

       At a probation hearing held on October 21, 2020, Guillen-Sanchez admitted to
violating the terms of his probation by using methamphetamine. But due to the COVID
pandemic, the district court did not order a jail sanction. And the following year, on
November 12, 2021, the probation officer again moved to revoke Guillen-Sanchez'
probation because he had stopped reporting and his "[c]urrent whereabouts" were

                                             2
unknown. After many continuances, the court held a hearing on Guillen-Sanchez' 2021
probation violations. At that hearing, held on November 22, 2022, Guillen-Sanchez
admitted to violating his probation terms as outlined by the probation officer, and the
district court found that he had violated his probation.

          At the violation disposition hearing on February 9, 2023, Guillen-Sanchez argued
against the revocation of his probation and, instead, asked the district court to reinstate
his probation after serving a 180-day sanction. In support of his argument, Guillen-
Sanchez' girlfriend, and mother of his children, testified it would be very difficult to
provide for their children if he was imprisoned. And Guillen-Sanchez testified to his
future employment opportunities, while also explaining his reasons behind failing to
report.

          After hearing the parties' arguments and testimony, the district court revoked
Guillen-Sanchez' probation, ordering him to serve his original 28-month sentence. Prior
to revoking Guillen-Sanchez' probation, the district court reviewed his probation
violation history and noted Guillen-Sanchez "just disappeared" despite the district court's
repeated warnings to report.

          Guillen-Sanchez appeals.

          On appeal, Guillen-Sanchez concedes the district court possessed the statutory
authority to revoke his probation and impose his original sentence because the district
court had previously imposed a 3-day jail sanction and a 180-day prison sanction. See
K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3176(c)(1)(D). Even so, he contends the district court abused its
discretion in revoking his probation because the decision was unreasonable.

          When the State has established a probationer has violated the terms of probation,
the decision to revoke is within the sound discretion of the district court, unless limited

                                                3
by statute. State v. Tafolla, 315 Kan. 324, 328, 508 P.3d 351 (2022). Because Guillen-
Sanchez stipulated to the probation violations, we only need to determine whether the
district court's decision to revoke probation and impose a prison sentence was an abuse of
discretion. See State v. Brown, 51 Kan. App. 2d 876, 879-80, 357 P.3d 296 (2015). To
find an abuse of discretion, the judicial action must be deemed arbitrary, fanciful, or
unreasonable or be based on an error of law or error of fact. State v. Levy, 313 Kan. 232,
237, 485 P.3d 605 (2021). Guillen-Sanchez bears the burden to show an abuse of
discretion. See State v. Crosby, 312 Kan. 630, 635, 479 P.3d 167 (2021).

       Guillen-Sanchez concedes no statutory limitations apply to the district court's
decision to revoke his probation. See K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3716(c)(1)(D). And because
he does not argue the district court made an error of fact or law, we only consider
whether the district court's action was unreasonable.

       Given his poor record on probation, Guillen-Sanchez has not shown the district
court's action was unreasonable. As the district court noted, Guillen-Sanchez had three
prior probation violations at the time of revocation. Each violation included findings of
failures to report amongst many drug tests positive for methamphetamine and marijuana.
At the time of revocation, Guillen-Sanchez had again failed to report—including a nearly
full one-year period when his location was unknown—despite the district court's specific
reminders that he continue to report to his probation officer. As such, it was not
unreasonable for the district court to revoke Guillen-Sanchez' probation and order him to
serve his original sentence.

       Affirmed.

                                             4