State v. Riggs
123749
| Kan. Ct. App. | Nov 12, 2021Background
- Riggs pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine; court sentenced him to 24 months with the sentence suspended for 18 months probation.
- A probation condition prohibited contact with any person identified by the court or his court services officer, including J.O.
- While on probation Riggs accumulated multiple sanctions (including a 120-day jail sanction), continued drug-positive tests, and repeatedly violated the no-contact order.
- At a revocation hearing Riggs stipulated he committed a new crime while on probation—aggravated domestic battery against J.O.
- The district court found Riggs no longer amenable to probation, revoked probation, and imposed the underlying prison sentence rather than an intermediate (180-day) sanction.
- Riggs appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by imposing the underlying sentence instead of an available intermediate sanction; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing the underlying sentence rather than an intermediate sanction | Riggs: Imposition of the underlying sentence was an abuse because a 180‑day sanction remained available | State/District Court: Statute permits bypassing intermediate sanctions when defendant commits a new crime and court reasonably finds defendant not amenable to probation; prior sanctions and violations supported this | Court affirmed: committing a new crime authorized bypassing intermediate sanctions; decision was reasonable and not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Coleman, 311 Kan. 332, 460 P.3d 828 (Kan. 2020) (standard of appellate review for probation revocation is abuse of discretion)
- State v. Gonzalez-Sandoval, 309 Kan. 113, 431 P.3d 850 (Kan. 2018) (abuse-of-discretion definitions and framework)
- State v. Anderson, 291 Kan. 849, 249 P.3d 425 (Kan. 2011) (party alleging abuse of discretion bears the burden)
- State v. Dooley, 308 Kan. 641, 423 P.3d 469 (Kan. 2018) (district court must exhaust statutorily prescribed intermediate sanctions unless an enumerated exception applies)
