Court Opinion

ID: 9363003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-13 16:05:39.932084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:27.567813
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                                          Nos. 124,460
                                               124,659

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

                                       STATE OF KANSAS,
                                           Appellee,

                                                 v.

                                     GLORIA M. SANCHEZ,
                                         Appellant.

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Appeal from Reno District Court; JOSEPH L. MCCARVILLE III, judge. Opinion filed December 23,
2022. Affirmed.

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

Before ISHERWOOD, P.J., ATCHESON, J., and TIMOTHY G. LAHEY, S.J.

       PER CURIAM: Gloria M. Sanchez appeals the district court's revocation of her
probation and imposition of her underlying prison sentences in two criminal cases. We
consolidated the cases on appeal and granted Sanchez' motion for summary disposition in
lieu of briefs pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48). The
State did not respond to the motion. Based on our review of the record, we find the
district court properly exercised its discretion in ordering Sanchez to serve her prison
terms. Thus, we affirm.

                                                 1
                        FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

       In 2017 and 2018, Gloria M. Sanchez was charged with the commission of
numerous crimes in Reno County under case numbers 17 CR 976 and 18 CR 518. Those
in 17 CR 976 arose from an incident in October 2017, when Sanchez, along with a man
who had a pending arrest warrant, were found in possession of methamphetamine, two
handguns, a ballistic vest, a night vision camera, marijuana, a cigarillo, a digital scale,
and three glass pipes used for methamphetamine. The glass pipes were discovered in a
purse, marijuana was found in a makeup bag, and one of the handguns was in a woman's
coat. Sanchez ultimately pleaded guilty to one count each of possession of
methamphetamine and possession of marijuana.

       The charges in 18 CR 518 arose out of an incident in May 2018, while Sanchez
was on bond in 17 CR 976. She and Darrell Dove were found in a residence, from which
Dove had been evicted, after the residence's owner called the police to report a potential
burglary in progress. When law enforcement officers arrived, they discovered
methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia associated with Sanchez and Dove.

       Sanchez eventually pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine,
use/possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia, criminal trespass, and interference
with a law enforcement officer. The court conducted a consolidated sentencing hearing in
February 2019, at which it granted Sanchez probation for 18 months, imposed underlying
prison terms of 30 months in each of her two cases, and ordered them to run
consecutively.

       Roughly two months later, Sanchez received a three-day jail sanction for failing to
report to Community Corrections and, in another instance, reporting late. Another two
months passed, and the State again filed motions to revoke Sanchez' probation. This time
she acquired new criminal charges in Ford County for possessing methamphetamine, as

                                              2
well as drug paraphernalia, and driving with a suspended license. The State amended its
motions a short time later to include Sanchez' admission to using methamphetamine on
two separate occasions.

       The district court held an evidentiary hearing on the matter in August 2019. Ford
County law enforcement officers testified that Sanchez was pulled over while driving a
stolen vehicle. Another individual was riding in the passenger seat, and following an
inventory search of the vehicle, officers discovered a glass pipe that tested positive for
methamphetamine. Sanchez' intensive supervision officer (ISO) also testified that
Sanchez failed urinalysis tests (UAs), twice admitted to using methamphetamine, and
began drug treatment in July 2019 even if only after, as the State described, "her back
was against the wall." The ISO added that, according to Sanchez' treatment provider,
Sanchez missed no appointments and was doing well in group sessions.

       At the close of evidence, the State requested revocation of Sanchez' probation and
imposition of her prison sentences. Sanchez countered that she had done reasonably well
on probation and while she relapsed in June, she checked into rehab to get back on the
right path. She therefore requested that the court allow her to remain in treatment and, if
necessary, only impose a short sanction. The district court found Sanchez violated
probation in both cases, imposed an additional 12 months of probation, and ordered a 60-
day jail sanction. It also ordered that she have no contact with Darrell Dove, Sanchez' co-
defendant in 18 CR 518.

       About nine months later, the State again sought to revoke Sanchez' probation and
asserted she violated the no-contact order with Dove, failed to notify her ISO that her
employment was terminated, and tested positive for methamphetamine. Sanchez failed to
appear at the initial hearing, so the State amended its revocation motions to reflect her
absence, and the court issued a bench warrant for her arrest.

                                              3
       The parties reconvened for an evidentiary hearing on the motions a month later.
The State called four witnesses, including Sanchez' former employer, Lawrence Lamp,
who testified that Sanchez was terminated on March 20, 2020, as a result of not showing
up to work. He acknowledged that Sanchez provided a medical note conveying that she
was ordered to quarantine on March 18, 2020, based on COVID-19 symptoms but
explained it was unclear when the business received the note.

       Sharon Grennan, Sanchez' addiction counselor at New Chance in Dodge City,
testified that Sanchez participated in outpatient individual and group sessions and that she
tested positive for methamphetamine in February 2020. Yet that result did not prevent
Sanchez from achieving a successful discharge from outpatient treatment.

       Sonja Channel, the person responsible for supervising Dove's progress in
Community Corrections, was also called by the State. As part of her testimony, the court
took judicial notice of the records in Dove's case which revealed he stipulated to having
contact with Sanchez in violation of the no-contact order.

       Brennan Hadley, Sanchez' ISO for Reno County Corrections, testified that
Sanchez did not inform her that she was fired, but also explained that Sanchez had since
found employment at True Value. She also testified that Sanchez tested positive for
methamphetamine in February 2020, but then denied using methamphetamine the next
day. Hadley explained that New Chance successfully discharged Sanchez, based on the
Senate Bill 123 program, even though Sanchez "made minimal progress in her
[cognitive] treatment due to her non willingness to work on her behavioral skills and
impulse decision making with her outbursts and disrupting [cognitive] groups."
According to a report from New Chance, Sanchez declined to pursue outside support
services following her discharge. Finally, Hadley explained that Sanchez resided in
Dodge City when the COVID-19 pandemic began and therefore she did not report to her
in person in Reno County. Sanchez was also not being supervised in Dodge City due to

                                             4
COVID-19 restrictions, therefore, Hadley could not verify whether Sanchez was using
drugs because there were not opportunities for UAs.

       The State argued that Sanchez' pattern of drug use and dishonesty toward her ISO
suggested that Community Corrections was not beneficial to her and allowing her to
remain on probation could lead to another conviction down the road. It alternatively
requested that the court order Sanchez to reside in Reno, rather than Ford County, to
insulate her from the negative influences which contributed to her two most recent
violations.

       Sanchez responded there was not sufficient evidence to establish that she
contacted Dove, that she did not report being terminated because she was fighting to get
her job back, and that one failed UA did not warrant an extended prison sanction. She
further asserted that she did not want to return to Reno County because her family and
sobriety efforts were centered in Ford County.

       The district court found that Sanchez violated her probation by disregarding the
no-contact order, failing to inform her probation officer that she was terminated, and
testing positive for methamphetamine. As for the disposition, it explained: "I think that
the smart money agrees that Miss Sanchez has not taken this all that seriously. She has
been in big, big, big trouble all this time and she has abused and squandered her
opportunities to work her way out of that." The court also found that Sanchez lacked the
necessary motivation or structure and determined that a 180-day prison sanction was
appropriate followed by an extension of probation for 18 months. It also ordered her to
reside in Reno County.

       Nearly one year later, the State again pursued revocation of Sanchez' probation. As
support it alleged that she was dishonest with her ISO about her current residence, failed
to report law enforcement contacts on two different dates, visited Ford County twice

                                             5
without her ISO's permission, failed to report as directed, and failed to maintain contact
with her ISO in February 2021. Sanchez stipulated to the allegations which the court
accepted and then revoked her probation. In response to the disposition question, Sanchez
explained she currently resided at Oxford House, passed her UAs, attended church,
participated in a faith-based recovery group, and worked with a sponsor. She claimed a
determination to distance herself from drugs and that, unlike previous attempts, she was
taking concrete steps to maintain her sobriety, noting that none of her current violations
involved drug or alcohol use. Sanchez explained she went to Dodge City to visit her
children and that the receptionist for Community Corrections told her it was acceptable to
make the visits without authorization from her probation officer. She acknowledged the
contact with law enforcement and explained it was simply because she was twice pulled
over for a broken windshield and received tickets on both occasions.

       Sanchez further offered that while her children's grandmother provided their day-
to-day care, the task was very burdensome, and they all depended on her. Thus, a 60-
month prison term for her would adversely affect her family. She acknowledged her
previous attempts at sobriety were lukewarm, but she was currently at rock bottom so
another chance to seek inpatient treatment and take advantage of the bed available to her
at an inpatient facility in Newton would prove beneficial.

       The State informed the court that the residence where Sanchez claimed to live was
vacant and that her statements about visiting her children in Dodge City omitted the fact
that both of her traffic stops occurred outside the Dodge City casino. It also pointed out
that Sanchez was fortunate to receive plea deals in both cases that reduced her charges to
drug possession, rather than distribution, and reminded the court that Sanchez violated
her probation multiple times over several years. Not only that, but the history of the cases
reflected the emergence of a pattern where Sanchez only exhibited improved behavior
when her probation was in jeopardy and suggested this time was simply more of the
same. Thus, imposition of her original sentences was appropriate.

                                             6
       The district court revoked Sanchez' probation and imposed her underlying
sentences with the explanation that it had "no reason to believe that you're going to
actually do what you say you're going to do because this is the [same thing] I hear every
time. . . . The only time you ever say you're going to do something or even try to do
something is when you're, like, on the doors closing on you."

       Sanchez timely appeals to this court.

                                           ANALYSIS

       On appeal, Sanchez argues the district court abused its discretion by ordering her
to serve her original sentence. We review a district court's decision to revoke probation
for an abuse of discretion. State v. Tafolla, 315 Kan. 324, 328, 508 P.3d 351 (2022). A
court abuses its discretion if the judicial decision is (1) arbitrary, fanciful, or
unreasonable; (2) based on an error of law; or (3) based on an error of fact. 315 Kan. 324,
Syl. ¶ 1. Sanchez, as the party alleging an abuse of discretion, bears the burden of proof
on appeal. 315 Kan. 324, Syl. ¶ 1.

       Sanchez does not argue the district court made an error of fact and concedes it was
legally authorized to revoke her probation and impose her original sentences. Sanchez'
offenses occurred in October 2017 and May 2018. As a result, we apply K.S.A. 2017
Supp. 22-3716 when reviewing the district court's order revoking her probation. See State
v. McHenry, No. 122,393, 2022 WL 2904021, at *2 (Kan. App. 2022) (unpublished
opinion) (explaining "the applicable statute depends on the date the offenses occurred").
K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3716(c)(1)(E) provides that a district court may revoke an
offender's probation only if the offender previously served a 2- or 3-day jail sanction and
a 120- or 180-day prison sanction. Sanchez acknowledges she served 3-day and 60-day
jail sanctions, and a 180-day prison sanction. Therefore, the district court did not err as a
matter of law.

                                                7
       Sanchez also fails to establish the district court acted unreasonably in its decision.
That burden is fulfilled when it is established that no reasonable person would have
adopted the same view. State v. Gonzalez, 290 Kan. 747, 755, 234 P.3d 1 (2010); State v.
Yotter, No. 124,488, 2022 WL 3018153, at *2 (Kan. App. 2022) (unpublished opinion)
("So we may reverse the district court's decision only if it was unreasonable, meaning no
other judicial officer would come to the same conclusion in a comparable situation."). It
cannot be said that no reasonable person would have revoked Sanchez' probation and
imposed her original sentences. In her motion for summary disposition, Sanchez suggests
the district court abused its discretion because, at the most recent probation revocation
hearing, she explained she hit rock bottom, was working with a sponsor, and staying at
Oxford House.

       The district court unquestionably acknowledged Sanchez' statements; it simply
viewed them as measures indicative of a larger pattern where she only sought help when
probation was in jeopardy. The record supports the district court's analysis. Sanchez was
released on bond in case number 17 CR 976 then arrested and charged in case number 18
CR 518. Shortly after receiving probation, she served a 3-day jail sanction and then, later
that year, entered inpatient treatment after the State moved to revoke her probation. She
served a 60-day sanction followed by a 180-day prison sanction the next year. The State's
next motion alleging violations prompted entry into Oxford House, attendance at church
services, and inquiries regarding inpatient treatment facilities.

       The record before us supports the district court's observation that Sanchez'
remedial actions simply accompanied the specter of revocation and that a reasonable
person could agree that she failed to correct her behavior despite receiving several
opportunities to do so. We decline to find that imposition of her prison sentences
constituted an abuse of discretion.

       Affirmed.

                                              8