Court Opinion

ID: 9372013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 16:03:48.475052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:31.755462
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                                           No. 124,886

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

                                       STATE OF KANSAS,
                                           Appellee,

                                                 v.

                                    TANNER JOHN GUYTON,
                                         Appellant.

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Appeal from Barton District Court; CAREY L. HIPP, judge. Opinion filed February 17, 2023.
Affirmed.

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

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

       PER CURIAM: Tanner John Guyton claims the district court abused its discretion
when it revoked his probation and ordered him to serve his underlying prison sentence.
We granted his unopposed motion for summary disposition under Supreme Court Rule
7.041A (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48).

       Guyton admits the district court had the legal authority to revoke his probation
since he received probation as the result of a dispositional departure. K.S.A. 2020 Supp.
22-3716(c)(7)(B). Alternatively, the court had the legal authority to revoke his probation
since it found he committed new felonies while on probation. K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-
3716(c)(7)(C).

                                                 1
       After carefully reviewing the entire record on appeal, we conclude the district
court acted within its discretion and within the applicable guidelines set forth in K.S.A.
2020 Supp. 22-3716(c)(7)(B) and (c)(7)(C) when it revoked Guyton's probation and
imposed his underlying prison sentence.

       Affirmed under Rule 7.041A(d).

                                             2