State v. Gooding

1
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
No. 119,727
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,
v.
KAYLA MARIE GOODING,
Appellant.



MEMORANDUM OPINION


Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; CHRISTOPHER M. MAGANA, judge. Opinion filed April 12,

2019. Affirmed.



Submitted for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6820(g) and (h).



Before HILL, P.J., BRUNS, J., and BURGESS, S.J.



PER CURIAM: Kayla M. Gooding appeals the district court's decision to revoke her
probation and require that she serve her underlying prison sentence. Gooding contends that
the district court erred in revoking her probation. On Gooding's motion, we accepted this
appeal for summary disposition under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6820(g) and (h) and Supreme
Court Rule 7.041A (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 47). Based on our review of the record, we find
no error in its decision to revoke Gooding's probation.
2
On December 20, 2016, as part of a plea agreement with the State, the district
court found Gooding guilty of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute
and possession of paraphernalia to distribute. Instead of imposing a presumptive prison
sentence, the district court granted her a dispositional departure. Accordingly, the district
court sentenced Gooding to a term of 103 months' imprisonment, suspended to 36
months' probation.


Unfortunately, on multiple occasions Gooding showed that she was unable to
fulfill the terms of her probation. Within a month after sentencing, she admitted to using
methamphetamine and the district court imposed a three-day jail sanction. A few months
later, she again violated her probation by using methamphetamine and the district court
ordered a second three-day jail sanction in April 2017. Two months later, the district
court ordered a third jail sanction but Gooding never showed up and was taken into
custody in October 2017.


In November 2017, Gooding admitted to her violations, but the district court
decided not to revoke Gooding's probation. Instead, it ordered a 120-day sanction and
placement in residential treatment. However, she failed to report to Community
Corrections after serving her sanction. She also failed to enter into the residential
program as ordered. Subsequently, Gooding pled guilty of having committed a new
crime—an offender registration violation.


On June 21, 2018, the district court held a joint hearing on the probation revocation
in this case and for sentencing in the new case. At the hearing, Gooding admitted to
violating the terms of her probation. Moreover, Gooding's attorney admitted that her
client had "an extensive history of drug use," had "been to treatment before," and had
"relapsed before." Even so, defense counsel asked that the district court to give her client
"one final chance" by reinstating her probation. In the alternative, her attorney requested
that the district court modify her underlying sentence to 51 months.
3
At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court revoked Gooding's probation and
found that no intermediate sanctions were required. The district court noted that Gooding
had committed a new crime while on probation in addition to her other violations. The
district court also noted that it had already given her "two quick dip sanctions and a DOC
sanction" because of her previous violations of the terms of her probation. Ultimately, the
district court determined that it had given Gooding "more opportunities than probably
warranted based on [her] behavior." Nevertheless, the district court granted her a sentence
modification to 90 months' imprisonment and ordered her to serve her underlying sentence
as modified.


On appeal, Gooding contends that the district court erred in revoking her
probation. In particular, she argues that the district court abused its discretion when other
sanctions were available. In response, the State argues that Gooding has failed to present
any compelling facts that support a finding of abuse of discretion by the district court in
revoking the probation or in imposing sentence.


Of course, once a violation has been established, the decision to revoke probation
is left to the sound discretion of the district court. See State v. Skolaut, 286 Kan. 219,
227-28, 182 P.3d 1231 (2008). Judicial discretion is abused if the action (1) is arbitrary,
fanciful, or unreasonable—if no reasonable person would have taken the view adopted by
the trial court; (2) is based on an error of law; or (3) is based on an error of fact. State v.
Jones, 306 Kan. 948, 957, 398 P.3d 856 (2017). This discretion is limited by the
intermediate sanctions as outlined in K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716.


Here, it is undisputed by the parties that Gooding violated the terms of her
probation by committing a new crime as well as by failing to enter a residential treatment
program and failing to report to Community Corrections. As the district court found, no
intermediate sanctions are required when the offender commits a new crime while on
probation. See K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716(c)(8)(A). Likewise, the district court may
4
bypass the imposition of graduated sanctions where a defendant has received a
dispositional departure. K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716(c)(9)(B).


Based on our review of the record, we find no error of fact or law. Rather, we find
that the district court's decision was reasonable under the circumstances presented.
Although the district court gave Gooding several chances to comply with the terms of her
probation and to get the help she needs for her drug problem, she repeatedly failed to take
advantage of these. Thus, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion and we
affirm the district court's decision.


Affirmed.