State v. Buchanan
123324
| Kan. Ct. App. | Jul 2, 2021Background
- Buchanan pleaded guilty to possession of heroin, driving while suspended, and a taillight violation; court imposed 21 months (suspended) and 18 months probation.
- Probation conditions included drug treatment, reporting to an ISO, remaining in county, community service, and payment of fees and treatment costs.
- Between 2018–2020 Buchanan repeatedly violated conditions; the court imposed a 3-day sanction, then a 60-day sanction and extended probation.
- The State later moved to revoke; at the revocation hearing Buchanan had recently returned, completed treatment and some community service, paid some fees, and presented testimony of recent stability.
- The district court found violations, concluded Buchanan was not amenable to probation based on prior sanctions, revoked probation, and ordered execution of the underlying sentence.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the district court failed to follow the statutory intermediate-sanctions framework and did not make the required particularized findings before revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly revoked probation without imposing intermediate sanctions or making particularized findings under the statutory scheme | Buchanan: recent compliance and life changes show amenability; court should not revoke | State: repeated violations and prior sanctions show non-amenability; revocation justified | Reversed — court abused discretion by skipping required intermediate sanctions and failing to make particularized findings; remand for new dispositional hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clapp, 308 Kan. 976 (explains statutory intermediate-sanctions scheme and requires courts to follow it before revocation)
- State v. Dooley, 308 Kan. 641 (describes when findings are sufficiently particularized)
- State v. Duran, 56 Kan. App. 2d 1268 (requires particularized findings about intermediate sanctions' impact on public safety or offender welfare)
- State v. McFeeters, 52 Kan. App. 2d 45 (remarks on limits of considering amenability to probation absent statutory justification)
- State v. Marshall, 303 Kan. 438 (district court has no discretion to disregard statutory limits or make errors of law)