Court Opinion

ID: 9366644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 16:04:10.58558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:54.154555
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                                          No. 125,244

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

                                      STATE OF KANSAS,
                                          Appellee,

                                                v.

                                    TYLER JAMES HARRY,
                                        Appellant.

                                MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Appeal from Thomas District Court; KEVIN BERENS, judge. Opinion filed January 27, 2023.
Affirmed.

       Submitted by the parties for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-
6820(g) and (h).

Before HILL, P.J., BRUNS and WARNER, JJ.

       PER CURIAM: Tyler James Harry appeals the revocation of his probation, claiming
that the district court abused its discretion by revoking his probation rather than
reinstating his probation. We granted Harry's motion for summary disposition of his
appeal under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48). After our review
of the record, we affirm the district court's decision to revoke Harry's probation.

       Harry pleaded guilty to mistreatment of an elder person, identity theft, and
forgery. The district court sentenced him to a 12-month prison sentence and 24 months'
probation.

                                                1
       Later, Harry violated his probation by drinking alcohol and leaving the county
without permission. As a result, Harry received a three-day jail sanction. Then in April
2022, Harry's intensive supervision officer filed an affidavit in court alleging several
probation violations, including:

       • Harry was cited for minor in possession (MIP)/minor in consumption (MIC)
          and obstruction on November 12, 2021, and MIP and attempting to furnish
          alcohol to a minor on November 13, 2021. He admitted to drinking alcohol,
          leaving Ellis County without permission, and disregarding curfew on those
          days.
       • Harry failed to report for various meetings with Northwest Kansas Community
          Corrections and drug and alcohol treatments at Smoky Hill Foundation,
          resulting in his unsuccessful discharge.
       • Harry traveled to Reno County without permission, where he was arrested on
          some outstanding warrants.

       Harry's supervision officer also stated in the affidavit that Harry continued to
violate his probation, relocated several times without permission, failed to get a job, and
was involved with a developmentally disabled female and took her phone and vehicle for
his own use.

       The State moved to revoke Harry's probation, alleging he violated the following:
          • Condition 1 of his probation by committing new crimes;
          • Condition 2 by not reporting as directed;
          • Condition 7 by not remaining within a specified area;
          • Condition 8 by using illegal substances;
          • Condition 11 by not complying with treatment; and
          • Condition 12 by not complying with his curfew.

                                              2
The State requested the district court revoke Harry's probation and order him to serve his
original sentence.

       At his probation violation hearing in June 2022, Harry's former probation officers
testified that he committed all the violations listed in the affidavit. They testified that
Harry is not amenable to probation. One former probation officer testified that Harry has
no respect for authority and does whatever he wants. The officer said that while many
probationers struggle with underlying issues such as substance abuse, in his opinion
Harry's actions were "just straight up defiant behavior."

       In Harry's testimony, he provided excuses for his probation violations but did not
deny committing them. The court revoked Harry's probation and ordered him to serve his
original sentence. The district court noted that Harry committed a new crime while on
probation, failed to report, and failed to maintain a job or a place to live. Based on those
facts, the court felt that it was in the best interests of the community and Harry's
rehabilitation for Harry to serve his prison sentence.

       To us, Harry argues that the district court abused its discretion by revoking his
probation rather than reinstating him. He does not explain why the district court should
have reinstated his probation.

       Once a probation violation is established, a district court has discretion to revoke
probation unless the court is otherwise limited by statute. State v. Tafolla, 315 Kan. 324,
328, 508 P.3d 351 (2022). The district court was not limited by the statutes requiring
intermediate sanctions because K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3716(c)(7)(C) allows a district
court to bypass intermediate sanctions if the defendant commits a new crime while on
probation.

                                               3
       A judicial action is an abuse of discretion if (1) it is arbitrary, fanciful, or
unreasonable; (2) it is based on an error of law; or (3) it is based on an error of fact. State
v. Levy, 313 Kan. 232, 237, 485 P.3d 605 (2021). Harry does not argue that the district
court made an error of fact or law, so our inquiry is whether a reasonable person would
agree with the court's decision to revoke Harry's probation. We hold that they would.

       Harry committed several probation violations, including committing three new
crimes. His probation officers testified he is not amenable to probation and is "straight up
defiant." Harry also took no responsibility for his probation violations. Under these
circumstances, a reasonable person would agree with the district court's decision to
revoke Harry's probation.

       We affirm the district court's decision to revoke Harry's probation and order he
serve his underlying sentence.

                                                4