Court Opinion

ID: 9963911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 15:07:12.878975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:04.101611
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                                              No. 125,984

              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

                                           STATE OF KANSAS,
                                               Appellee,

                                                    v.

                                          CHRISTINA L. HENNEN,
                                               Appellant.

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION

        Appeal from Shawnee District Court; BRETT A. WATSON, judge. Submitted without oral
argument. Opinion filed April 26, 2024. Affirmed.

        Jacob Nowak, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

        Carolyn A. Smith, assistant district attorney, Michael F. Kagay, district attorney, and Kris W.
Kobach, attorney general, for appellee.

Before BRUNS, P.J., GARDNER and ISHERWOOD, JJ.

        PER CURIAM: Christina L. Hennen appeals the decision of the Shawnee County
District Court revoking her probation and imposing her underlying prison sentences. In
doing so, the district court invoked the offender welfare bypass and ordered Hennen to
serve her underlying prison sentences rather than imposing an intermediate sanction. On
appeal, Hennen contends that the district court did not make particularized findings to
justify application of the offender welfare bypass. However, based on our review of the
record, we find that the district court adequately explained its rationale in doing so and
relied on specific facts rather than on generalizations. Thus, we affirm.

                                                     1
                                           FACTS

       On September 29, 2017, the State charged Hennen in case No. 2017-CR-1399
with two counts of forgery. The conduct leading to these charges occurred on October 24
and 26, 2015. On March 6, 2019, while the forgery case was still pending, the State
charged Hennen in case No. 2019-CR-464 with one count of burglary, one count of theft,
and one count of criminal damage to property. The conduct leading to these charges
occurred on March 3, 2019. Ultimately, Hennen pled guilty to one count of forgery and
one count of burglary under a universal plea agreement.

       Based on Hennen's criminal history score of H, her sentence fell in a border box
category for the controlling burglary conviction. As a result, the district court imposed a
sentence of 38 months in prison on the burglary conviction and a consecutive 9-month
sentence on the forgery conviction. However, finding that a nonprison sanction would
serve community safety interests by promoting offender reformation, the district court
suspended the sentences and placed Hennen on supervised probation for 18 months.

       About one month after sentencing, the State filed a motion to revoke Hennen's
probation in both cases alleging that she failed to report to her intensive supervision
officer (ISO). At a hearing on November 4, 2020, the district court found that the State
presented sufficient evidence to prove that Hennen violated her probation by failing to
report. The district court imposed a 30-day jail sanction in each case. The district court
also extended Hennen's probation in the forgery case for an additional 12 months from
the date of the hearing.

       In March 2021, the State filed its second motion to revoke Hennen's probation in
both cases alleging failure to report. In June 2021, the State filed an amended affidavit
adding an allegation that Hennen committed a new law violation for drug related charges.
Hennen stipulated to these probation violations at a hearing on October 28, 2021. The

                                              2
district court imposed a 30-day jail sanction in each case and extended her term of
probation in each case for an additional 12 months from the date of the hearing.

       About six months later, the State filed its third motion to revoke Hennen's
probation in her burglary case alleging failure to report. Hennen again stipulated to the
alleged probation violation at a hearing on June 9, 2022. The district court again imposed
a 30-day jail sanction and extended probation in her burglary case for an additional 12
months from the date of the hearing.

       On October 31, 2022, the State filed its fourth motion to revoke probation in
Hennen's burglary case, and on November 16, 2022, the State filed its third motion to
revoke probation in her forgery case, alleging failure to report in both cases. The district
court held a probation violation hearing on November 17, 2022. At the hearing, the State
presented the testimony of Hennen's ISO, Jimmy Zirkle, who testified that Hennen had
not contacted him or reported for supervision since the last violation hearing on June 9,
2022. Hennen presented no evidence to refute Zirkle's testimony but asked the district
court to take judicial notice that there was never a two- or three-day jail sanction imposed
in these cases.

       After the district court found that Hennen had again violated the terms of her
probation, the State asked the district court to revoke Hennen's probation and impose her
underlying prison sentences. On the other hand, Hennen's counsel argued that the district
court lacked authority to revoke her probation and impose her underlying prison
sentences because she had not yet received a two- or three-day intermediate jail sanction.
Hennen's counsel therefore asked the district court to impose an intermediate jail sanction
and reinstate her probation. The district court then gave Hennen the opportunity for
allocution.

                                              3
       Ultimately, the district court revoked Hennen's probation and ordered that she
serve her underlying sentences. In doing so, the district court applied the offender welfare
bypass for intermediate sanctions and stated its rationale on the record. The district court
subsequently filed journal entries in both cases noting the application of the offender
welfare bypass and finding that intermediate sanctions would not aid Hennen given her
prior violations as well as her lack of effort or contact with her ISO.

       Thereafter, Hennen filed a timely notice of appeal.

                                         ANALYSIS

       On appeal, Hennen does not challenge the district court's finding that she violated
the conditions of her probation. Instead, she contends that the district court failed to
satisfy the particularized findings requirement of the offender welfare bypass for
intermediate sanctions. In response, the State contends that the district court's findings
were sufficiently particularized and were based on Hennen's pattern of behavior while on
probation. The State argues that the district court appropriately found that Hennen's
actions established a failure to understand and take advantage of the repeated
opportunities she had been given while on probation.

       The parties agree that Hennen's convictions resulted from acts committed in
October 2015 and March 2019. As a result, the district court was required to exercise its
discretion to revoke her probation within the statutory framework of K.S.A. 2015 Supp.
22-3716 and K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716. Those versions of the statute required the
district court to impose intermediate graduated sanctions—in the form of a jail sanction
for 2 or 3 days and a prison sanction of 120 or 180 days—before revoking probation and
requiring the defendant to serve his or her underlying sentence.

                                              4
       An exception to the general rule in effect at the times relevant to this opinion is the
intermediate sanctions bypass. K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 22-3716(c)(1); K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-
3716(c)(1). Under both the 2015 and 2018 versions of the statute—which in pertinent
part is also the same as the current version of the statute—a district court has the
authority to revoke an offender's probation without having previously imposed graduated
sanctions if it "sets forth with particularity the reasons for finding that the safety of
members of the public will be jeopardized or that the welfare of the offender will not be
served by such sanction." K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 22-3716(c)(9); K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-
3716(c)(9)(A).

       If a district court wishes to bypass graduated sanctions because the welfare of the
offender will not be served by imposing sanctions, it must make findings that are
"'distinct rather than general'" and "'with attention to or concern with details.'" State v.
Dooley, 308 Kan. 641, 652, 423 P.3d 469 (2018). In other words, "'an implicit
determination is not enough.'" 308 Kan. at 652. To rely on this exception, the district
court must explain why the offender's welfare will not be served by the imposition of an
intermediate sanction. State v. McFeeters, 52 Kan. App. 2d 45, 49, 362 P.3d 603 (2015).
Also, in State v. Duran, 56 Kan. App. 2d 1268, 1276, 445 P.3d 761 (2019), a panel of this
court found that "[b]road generalizations that equally could apply to all similar cases are
not sufficiently particularized to meet the requirements of [the statute]."

       A review of the record in this case reveals that the district court did not engage in
"speculative and generalized predictions" but rather relied on Hennen's specific history of
violating the conditions of her probation over several years. In reaching its decision, the
district court reviewed the seriousness of Hennen's crimes of conviction as well as her
repeated failures to take advantage of the opportunities to reform her life as a result of
being placed on probation. In particular, the district court cited Hennen's repeated failures
to report for supervision, her multiple prior violations of the conditions of her probation,
her inability to complete a drug treatment program, and her previous incarcerations in jail

                                               5
resulting from her multiple probation violations. Although the district court did not
impose the 2- or 3-day jail sanctions, the district court had imposed three 30-day jail
sanctions because of Hennen's previous probation violations.

       The district court found that Hennen had a pattern of disregarding the conditions
of her probation which showed that the attempts made to help her reform without serving
her underlying sentences had failed. As a result of this pattern of behavior over the course
of three years, the district court determined that an intermediate two- or three-day jail
sanction would not serve Hennen's welfare by helping her reform her life. In reaching this
conclusion, the district court explained:

       "[I]f there's going to be any reformation of you and your life, I think you're eventually
       going to have to learn about the consequences of your actions.

               "You are here convicted of rather serious crimes. Your punishment is not
       necessarily for what's happened recently, that is for not showing up for probation, but for
       the crimes that you originally committed. You were given a second chance at the time
       that you were sentenced in those offenses. You were not sent to prison. And then it
       appears that you were given a third, and a fourth, and maybe even a fifth chance.

               "The way the law worked at the time you were sentenced was there was what we
       call graduated sanctions. And that is a series of smaller steps in exposures to prison the
       Court was required to give you in order to see if that would help. If exposure to a shorter
       period of time in custody, or a shorter period of time in prison, would help to, sort of,
       change things for you.

               "However, the legislature also created escape patches for that. And one of them
       was if the Court made a finding that welfare of the offender would not be served by an
       intermediate sanction, the Court was not required to impose one. Based upon the
       evidence that I've heard here today, I make that finding. That is, I don't believe in either
       one of these cases, an intermediate sanction is going to do anything or serve your welfare.
       And the reason why is, I believe that the evidence demonstrates, on your part, a disregard

                                                     6
       for the terms of your probation. You're not engaging with the terms of probation. There
       has been at least 11 months where you have had no contact with your probation officer,
       whatsoever, except for the one time you were brought to court to face an allegation that
       you had failed to report. And this is not a one-time instance. This has happened
       repeatedly, over and over again. And so considering the fact that we have tried inpatient
       drug treatment with you, and that hasn't worked, and we have tried to do probation with
       you, and you still do not engage with your probation, I don't think a quick dip, a smaller
       period of time in custody, is going to get the point across.

               "And so, on that basis, I find that the exception applies, which means the Court
       can now impose the underlying sentence without doing the intermediate sanction. And
       that will be the Court's order. I'm going to impose the original sentence that was imposed
       at the time of your sentencing, which for the 17-CR-1399 case, was a sentence of 9
       months in custody with 12 months of post-release supervision. And in 19-CR-464, that
       was a sentence of 38 months in custody of the Secretary of Corrections, with 24 months
       of postrelease supervision, running consecutively to 17-CR-1399."

       Accordingly, we find that the district court adequately explained its rationale with
sufficient particularity to justify imposing the offender welfare bypass. We also find that
Hennen did not challenge the district court's finding that she violated the conditions of
her probation. Thus, we affirm the district court's decision to revoke Hennen's probation
and to impose her underlying sentences.

       Affirmed.

                                                     7