State v. Huckey, 348 P.3d 997

Probationer Huckey did not report to his supervisor for more than two months, and the district court treated him as an absconder, denying intermediate sanctions.
Statute K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3716(c) requires intermediate sanctions before revoking probation unless a new crime, absconding, or specific welfare/public safety findings justify bypassing them.
Record shows no new crime; the court made no explicit welfare or public-safety findings, and evidence of Huckey fleeing or hiding was absent.
Huckey had prior felony conviction and possession of contraband charges; his current probation supervision initially was in Sedgwick/Greath Bend, with details of implementation in Great Bend.
On appeal, the court reversed the absconder finding for lack of substantial evidence, affirmed the probation violation, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with statutory procedures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Huckey an absconder supported by evidence?	Huckey claims he did not abscond; abstaining from contact for months is not enough.	State contends failure to report for over two months constitutes absconding per caselaw.	Absconder finding not supported by substantial evidence.
Are intermediate sanctions required when no new crime is proven and absconder status is not established?	Intermediate sanctions must be imposed unless exceptions apply; here none apply.	Absconder status nullifies sanctions under the statute, bypassing them.	Intermediate sanctions must be imposed unless exceptions apply; absence of proper absconder finding prevents bypass.
What procedure governs determining absconder status in probation revocation?	State must prove absconder via Raiburn framework; cannot rely on bare assertions.	Trial court can determine absconder status based on record; Campbell-like reasoning is not binding here.	Raiburn procedure applies; require evidence and findings; remand for proper evidentiary determination.

State v. Raiburn, 289 Kan. 319 (2009) (burden on State to allege fugitive status and prove by preponderance; evidentiary hearing required)
State v. Hess, 180 Kan. 472 (1950) (mere failure to appear does not make defendant a fugitive; absenteeism not absconding)
United States v. Gonzalez, 300 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2002) (failing to report does not establish absconder status absent fleeing or hiding)
State v. Skolaut, 286 Kan. 219 (2008) (probation revocation decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Fischer v. State, 296 Kan. 808 (2013) (abuse of discretion standards in probation revocation)
State v. Sandberg, 290 Kan. 980 (2010) (unlimited review on questions of statute interpretation in revocation context)
State v. Dale, 293 Kan. 660 (2011) (statutory interpretation in revocation proceedings)