State v. Amaro, 122642

Amaro pled no contest in case 18CR21 to aggravated kidnapping and aggravated battery and, per plea deal, received a dispositional departure to 36 months' probation instead of a 253‑month presumptive sentence.
While on felony probation, Amaro was later charged in 19CR194 for new offenses against the same victim and pled guilty to residential burglary.
The State moved to revoke Amaro's probation in 18CR21; at the joint hearing Amaro admitted the violations and counsel asked only for a reduced sentence based on youth.
The district court revoked probation and ordered Amaro to serve the original 253‑month term, citing prior probation, similar offenses against the same victim, and danger to public safety.
The court did not invite allocution at the revocation portion of the hearing, but later permitted Amaro to speak at the sentencing for 19CR194, during which he addressed the 18CR21 sentence; the court reconsidered but left the sentence unchanged.
Amaro appealed only the probation revocation, arguing the court erred by imposing the original sentence without allowing him to offer mitigating statements (i.e., allocution).

Issue	Amaro's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether a defendant has a right to allocution before probation is revoked and the original sentence imposed	Amaro: court should have allowed him to offer mitigating statements before imposing the original sentence	State: K.S.A. 22‑3716 contains no allocution requirement for probation revocation hearings	No statutory or recognized due process right to allocution at probation revocation; court affirmed revocation (relied on controlling precedent)
Whether failure to permit allocution requires a new hearing (prejudice)	Amaro: imposing full sentence without hearing mitigation was prejudicial	State: Amaro was not prejudiced; he later addressed the court and the sentence remained	No prejudice shown; Amaro later spoke at sentencing and court considered but maintained the sentence

State v. Alvarez, 309 Kan. 203 (2019) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
State v. Borders, 255 Kan. 871 (1994) (describing statutory allocution rights at sentencing)
State v. Caruthers, 22 Kan. App. 2d 910 (1996) (holding no statutory right to allocution at probation revocation)
State v. Salary, 309 Kan. 479 (2019) (failure to support an argument with authority is akin to failing to brief the issue)