State v. Starbuck
124296
| Kan. Ct. App. | Mar 18, 2022Background:
- Starbuck pled guilty in 19CR534 to multiple felonies (burglary/theft, meth possession); sentenced to a presumptive 14 months but granted 12 months probation.
- After alleged probation violations, Starbuck was charged in 20CR256 with meth possession and paraphernalia; he pled guilty and, per plea, received a 42-month sentence with a dispositional departure to 12 months probation, to run consecutive to 19CR534.
- Between 2019–2021 Starbuck accumulated multiple probation violation allegations (new drug offenses, failure to report, a domestic battery) and received intermediate sanctions (including a 120-day sanction) and probation extensions.
- The district court found Starbuck committed new crimes while on probation, that he had exhausted intermediate sanctions in 19CR534, and that 20CR256 had been granted as a dispositional departure.
- The court revoked probation and ordered imposition of the underlying prison sentences; Starbuck appealed and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Starbuck's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revoking probation and imposing underlying sentences was an abuse of discretion | Revocation was an abuse; he should remain on probation or receive treatment | Revocation proper given admissions, new crimes, exhausted sanctions, and dispositional departure | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; reasonable person could agree with revocation |
| Whether statutory intermediate-sanctions requirement barred revocation | Court should have imposed more sanctions before revocation | Exceptions apply: new crimes while on probation and dispositional departure; sanctions in 19CR534 were exhausted | Exceptions applied; revocation lawful |
| Whether court erred in finding probation violations | He disputed some findings (esp. new-crime finding) | Record shows admissions and findings supporting violations | No legal or factual error; findings supported revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Coleman, 311 Kan. 332 (probation revocation decision is within district court discretion)
- State v. Skolaut, 286 Kan. 219 (appellate review of probation revocation is deferential)
- State v. Ballou, 310 Kan. 591 (abuse-of-discretion standard described)
- State v. Thomas, 307 Kan. 733 (defendant bears burden to show abuse of discretion)
- State v. Huckey, 51 Kan. App. 2d 451 (statutory requirement to impose graduated intermediate sanctions before revocation)