Court Opinion

ID: 9961684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 15:07:31.143349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:21:21.026259
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                                               No.126,544

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

                                           STATE OF KANSAS,
                                               Appellee,

                                                     v.

                                          JAMES LOUIS MILES,
                                              Appellant.

                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

           Appeal from Stanton District Court; CLINT B. PETERSON, judge. Opinion filed April 19,
2024. Affirmed.

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

Before ARNOLD-BURGER, C.J., HURST and COBLE, JJ.

           HURST, J.: James Louis Miles appeals the district court's revocation of his
probation and imposition of his underlying prison term. This court granted Miles' motion
for summary disposition under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48),
to which the State did not respond. Finding no error, this court affirms the district court's
revocation.

                                                     1
                        FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

       Miles pled no contest to one count of possession of methamphetamine for an act
he committed in January 2022. The district court sentenced Miles to 12 months of
probation with an underlying prison term of 20 months.

       Miles failed to succeed on probation. Less than a month after sentencing, Miles
admitted violating his probation conditions by submitting a urinalysis positive for illegal
substances. Miles waived his right to a probation revocation hearing and accepted a three-
day jail sanction imposed by the intensive supervision officer (ISO). About one month
later, Miles again admitted to violating the conditions of his probation by submitting
another urinalysis positive for illegal substances and accepted a second three-day jail
sanction. Only a few weeks after that, Miles again admitted to violating the conditions of
his probation by submitting yet another urinalysis positive for illegal substances and
accepted a third three-day jail sanction. Each of these three jail sanctions resulted from
Miles' admission to the violation, waiver of his right to a probation revocation hearing
before the district court, and imposition of a sanction by the ISO.

       Less than a month later, Miles' ISO filed an affidavit alleging a litany of probation
violations, including (1) failure to timely report as directed; (2) failure to verify and
provide notice of employment; (3) failure to make required payments; (4) failure to notify
and obtain approval of residency changes; (5) failure to remain in the specified area; (6)
submitting a litany of illegal drug-positive urinalyses; (7) multiple admissions to illegal
drug use; (8) failure to complete an updated drug and alcohol evaluation; and (9) staying
out past curfew. The State thereafter moved to revoke Miles' probation based on the
violations alleged in the ISO's affidavit. Miles' ISO later filed an amended affidavit
adding allegations that Miles had committed two new crimes while on probation, one of
which had already resulted in a conviction.

                                               2
          Miles' ISO testified at the probation revocation hearing that while still on
probation in the present case, Miles was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia in
December 2022 in the City of Ulysses Municipal Court. The ISO also testified to other
pending charges, including one for possession of drug paraphernalia in Grant County for
which Miles was charged but not yet convicted. The district court found that Miles
violated his probation for several reasons, including being convicted for possession of
drug paraphernalia. The district court revoked Miles' probation and imposed his
underlying prison term. In the journal entry as the description for the reason for
revocation, the court included as part of its explanation, "Defendant convicted of new
crime on 1-23-23 in City Court of Ulysses, KS."

          Miles filed an untimely notice of appeal. However, this court issued a show-cause
order and—upon receiving a response—retained jurisdiction over the appeal under State
v. Ortiz, 230 Kan. 733, 640 P.2d 1255 (1982).

                                           DISCUSSION

          After the State has proven a probation violation by a preponderance of the
evidence, unless otherwise limited by statute, the district court has discretion to revoke
probation and impose the underlying sentence. State v. Tafolla, 315 Kan. 324, 328, 508
P.3d 351 (2022); State v. Brown, 51 Kan. App. 2d 876, Syl. ¶ 4, 357 P.3d 296 (2015)
("Once a probation violation has been established, whether to revoke the defendant's
probation is a discretionary decision for the district court unless a statute specifically
provides otherwise."). This court reviews the district court's revocation of probation for
an abuse of discretion. Tafolla, 315 Kan. at 328. "A court abuses its discretion if the
judicial decision (1) is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; (2) is based on an error of law;
(3) or is based on an error of fact." 315 Kan. at 328. As the party asserting an abuse of
discretion, Miles bears the burden of establishing such abuse of discretion. See 315 Kan.
at 328.

                                                3
       Generally, the applicable statutory scheme requires district courts to first impose
an intermediate sanction before revoking an offender's probation. See K.S.A. 2021 Supp.
22-3716(c)(1). However, there are exceptions to that general rule—including when the
probationer commits a new crime. The district court may revoke an offender's probation
without first imposing an intermediation sanction if "the offender commits a new felony
or misdemeanor while the offender is on probation . . . ." K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-
3716(c)(7)(C).

       In his motion for summary disposition, Miles simply asserts the bare conclusion
that "the district court erred in revoking his probation and in imposing the underlying
prison sentence." Miles does not challenge the district court's finding that he committed a
new crime while on probation. In fact, Miles concedes in his motion for summary
disposition that he did not dispute that finding at the probation revocation hearing itself.
Miles also failed to identify any legal or factual error upon which the district court based
its decision and did not claim that no reasonable person would agree with the district
court's decision.

       While the district court identified several reasons that factored into its revocation
decision, it only needed to rely on Miles' conviction for a new crime while on probation.
See State v. Novotny, 297 Kan. 1174, Syl. ¶ 1, 307 P.3d 1278 (2013) ("When a district
court provides alternative bases to support its ultimate ruling on an issue," only one valid
basis is sufficient to affirm.); see also State v. Grossman, 45 Kan. App. 2d 420, 428, 248
P.3d 776 (2011) (no abuse of discretion in revoking probation where "there were
alternate grounds to support the district court's actions beyond" the challenged ground).
The district court was not statutorily required to impose an intermediate sanction before
revoking Miles' probation because he committed a new crime. See K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-
3716(c)(7)(C). Apart from committing a new crime, Miles almost immediately violated
the conditions of his probation. Additionally, his unwillingness to comply with the

                                              4
conditions of his probation persisted even after he received three intermediate jail
sanctions. This court cannot say that no reasonable person would agree with the district
court's decision to revoke Miles' probation and order him to serve his underlying prison
term. The district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Miles' probation. There
was no error of law or fact, and it was not unreasonable for the district court to conclude
continuing Miles' probation would be futile.

                                       CONCLUSION

       The district court's decision to revoke Miles' probation and order him to serve his
underlying prison term is affirmed.

       Affirmed.

                                               5