State v. McFeeters, 362 P.3d 603

Defendant Dennis McFeeters pled guilty (Feb 2014) to possession of methamphetamine; court suspended a 20-month sentence and imposed 18 months probation with intensive supervision and mandated drug/alcohol treatment.
Probation officer Trenton James filed a revocation motion after McFeeters failed to report, missed treatment, had at least one positive UA, did not remain at reported addresses, and allegedly engaged in harassing/damaging conduct at housing.
McFeeters initially admitted violating reporting conditions, later acknowledged at least one positive UA, and asked either reinstatement or an intermediate sanction (120 or 180 days) instead of prison.
The district court revoked probation and sentenced McFeeters to serve the original 20-month prison term, explaining general concerns about drug use, noncompliance with treatment, and public safety.
At sentencing the court noted McFeeters had previously received a 3-day "Quick Dip" sanction; statutory law required imposition of a 120- or 180-day intermediate sanction unless the court set forth with particularity why such sanctions would jeopardize public safety or not serve offender welfare.
The appellate court found the district court’s reasons were conclusory and failed to set forth particularized findings required by K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3716(c)(9); it vacated the prison order and remanded for a new dispositional hearing.

Issue	McFeeters' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether district court abused discretion in revoking probation	McFeeters argued he remained amenable to probation and requested reinstatement or intermediate sanction	State argued violations and officer testimony justified revocation	No abuse; revocation was within discretion
Whether court properly imposed prison term without required intermediate sanction	McFeeters argued statute required intermediate sanction or particularized findings to avoid it	State argued court’s stated safety/welfare concerns justified skipping intermediate sanction	Court held findings were not particularized as required and were insufficient
Whether implicit or general reasons satisfy K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3716(c)(9)	McFeeters contended general reasons inadequate; asked for remand	State implicitly relied on court’s general safety/welfare statements	Implicit/general reasons insufficient; must explicitly set forth particularized findings
Remedy for failure to make particularized findings	McFeeters sought vacatur and remand for resentencing	State likely sought to uphold sentence	Court vacated prison order and remanded for new dispositional hearing to either impose intermediate sanction or make particularized findings

State v. Skolaut, 286 Kan. 219 (discretion to revoke probation rests with district court)
Fischer v. State, 296 Kan. 808 (standards for abuse of judicial discretion)
State v. Stafford, 296 Kan. 25 (defendant bears burden to show abuse of discretion)
State v. Sandberg, 290 Kan. 980 (review of sentencing after revocation is a question of law)
State v. Dale, 293 Kan. 660 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
State v. Huskey, 17 Kan. App. 2d 237 (meaning of "set forth with particularity")
State v. Miller, 32 Kan. App. 2d 1099 (implicit findings insufficient when statute requires particularized findings)