State v. Bartlett

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 116,368

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

KAREN L. BARTLETT,
Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Reno District Court; TIMOTHY J. CHAMBERS, judge. Opinion filed April 7, 2017.
Affirmed.

Submitted by the parties for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-6820(g) and
(h).

Before MALONE, P.J., LEBEN and POWELL, JJ.

Per Curiam: Karen L. Bartlett appeals from the district court's revocation and
reimposition of her probation for 18 months with a 180-day prison sanction. We granted
Bartlett's motion for summary disposition pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2017
Kan. S. Ct. R. 48). The State did not file a response. After review, we affirm the district
court.

In February 2014, Bartlett pled guilty to forgery and theft by deception. The
district court sentenced her to 18 months' probation with an underlying 19-month prison
sentence. In September 2015, the State filed a motion to revoke Bartlett's probation. The
district court revoked Bartlett's probation and imposed a 60-day jail sanction followed by
2

reinstatement for 18 months. In May 2016, the State again moved to revoke Bartlett's
probation, alleging that that she had engaged in assaultive and threatening behavior.
Finding that she committed probation violations, the district court revoked Bartlett's
probation and imposed a 180-day prison sanction followed by probation reinstatement for
18 months.

On appeal, Bartlett argues that the district court abused its discretion in revoking
her probation. But the district court's finding that Bartlett violated her probation was
based on its determination of witnesses' credibility, something we cannot evaluate. See
State v. Logsdon, 304 Kan. 3, Syl. ¶ 2, 371 P.3d 836 (2016). By finding that Bartlett
committed probation violations, the district court had discretion to revoke her probation.
See State v. Gumfory, 281 Kan. 1168, Syl. ¶ 1, 135 P.3d 1191 (2006) (district court has
discretion to revoke defendant's probation if defendant has violated his or her probation).
Because a reasonable person could have taken the same position, we conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Bartlett's probation. See State v.
Robertson, 279 Kan. 291, 308, 109 P.3d 1174 (2005).

Affirmed.