Court Opinion

ID: 9372011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 16:03:47.159896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:31.831203
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                                              No. 125,176

              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

                                          STATE OF KANSAS,
                                              Appellee,

                                                    v.

                                          MARTEZ R. RICKS,
                                            Appellant.

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION

        Appeal from Clark District Court; ANDREW M. STEIN, judge. Opinion filed February 17, 2023.
Affirmed.

        Michelle A. Davis, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

        Steven J. Obermeier, assistant solicitor general, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for
appellee.

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

        PER CURIAM: Martez R. Ricks appeals the district court's denial of his motion for
dispositional departure to probation. Our standard of review is abuse of discretion. State
v. Spencer, 291 Kan. 796, 807-08, 248 P.3d 256 (2011). Ricks does not claim the district
court committed a factual or legal error; he simply claims it acted unreasonably in
ordering incarceration instead of probation.

                                                    1
       After hearing Ricks' request for a departure sentence, the district court
substantially reduced the amount of prison time Ricks was required to serve from the
sentence that would presumptively apply to Ricks under the Kansas Sentencing
Guidelines. But the court found, given the nature of Ricks' offenses and his
noncompliance with the terms of his bond, that probation was not appropriate.

       We have carefully reviewed the entire record on appeal and conclude the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ricks' motion for dispositional departure to
probation.

       Affirmed under Rule 7.042(b)(6) (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 49).

                                             2