Court Opinion

ID: 9949027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-08 16:09:10.420918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:33.408531
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                                           No. 126,635

              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

                                       STATE OF KANSAS,
                                           Appellee,

                                                   v.

                                  JUSTIN RYAN MENDENHALL,
                                          Appellant.

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Appeal from Dickinson District Court; BENJAMIN J. SEXTON, judge. Submitted without oral
argument. Opinion filed March 8, 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.

       PER CURIAM: Justin Ryan Mendenhall appeals the district court's revocation of
his probation. We granted his motion for summary disposition under Supreme Court Rule
7.041A (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48). The State did not respond to said motion. Finding no
abuse of discretion by the district court, we affirm.

                         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

       In May 2022, Mendenall pled no contest to attempted arson, a severity level 9
nonperson felony, after cooking a light bulb in a microwave when checking out of a local
hotel. In accordance with a plea agreement, the district court sentenced Mendenhall to the
                                                   1
presumptive 14 months of imprisonment but, granting his motion for dispositional
departure, suspended the prison sentence to the terms of 12 months of probation.

       In February 2023, just months after being granted probation, Mendenhall was
charged and later convicted of felony aggravated assault in another Kansas county. The
State moved to revoke his probation on the attempted arson case. When appearing at the
probation revocation hearing, Mendenhall stipulated he violated the terms and conditions
of his probation by failing to remain crime free. As a result, the district court revoked
Mendenhall's probation and sentenced him to the original sentence of 14 months'
imprisonment.

       Mendenhall timely appealed the revocation of his probation.

                                          ANALYSIS

       Mendenhall asserts the district court abused its discretion by imposing his
underlying prison sentence rather than ordering him to serve a sanction and allowing him
to continue paying off court costs and restitution. Once the district court determines an
offender has violated the terms of probation, the decision to revoke probation lies in the
discretion of the district court, subject to statutory limitations. State v. Tafolla, 315 Kan.
324, 328, 508 P.3d 351 (2022). A district court abuses its discretion if its decision is
based on an error of fact or law or is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. State v. Levy,
313 Kan. 232, 237, 485 P.3d 605 (2021). Mendenhall bears the burden to establish such
abuse of discretion. See State v. Crosby, 312 Kan. 630, 635, 479 P.3d 167 (2021).

       The statutory limitations of the district court's discretion can be found in K.S.A.
2022 Supp. 22-3716. Relevant here, under K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 22-3716(c)(7)(B), (C), the
district court may revoke probation without having previously imposed a sanction if the

                                               2
probation was originally granted as the result of a dispositional departure or if the
offender commits a new felony or misdemeanor while serving probation.

       Under these statutory provisions, the district court made no error of law or fact.
Mendenhall stipulated he had violated the terms of his probation by being convicted of a
new crime—felony aggravated assault. And, the record reflects the district court granted
him probation on the attempted arson conviction as a result of a dispositional departure.
The district court, then, was within its statutory authority to bypass sanctions for either of
those reasons and simply revoke Mendenhall's probation. K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 22-
3716(c)(7)(B) and (C). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
revoking Mendenhall's probation and imposing his original sentence of imprisonment.

       Affirmed.

                                              3