State v. Stieb
123620
Kan. Ct. App.Dec 3, 2021Background
- In March 2019 Stieb pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine for a June 2018 offense.
- In August 2019 the district court imposed a 30-month sentence with border-box findings and granted 18 months' probation under community corrections.
- Stieb repeatedly violated probation: missed contacts with his intensive supervision officer (ISO), used methamphetamine and cocaine, possessed drug paraphernalia, failed to attend required treatment, and failed to keep his address current.
- He admitted earlier violations and received a 60-day jail sanction suspended pending entry into inpatient/residential treatment, but he did not engage in treatment and continued violating conditions.
- While on probation he committed a new crime (criminal deprivation of property); at the revocation hearing he stipulated to that new crime and other violations.
- The district court revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence; Stieb appealed and the appellate court granted summary disposition and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stieb) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and imposing the original sentence | The revocation/ordering of the original sentence was an abuse of discretion (no detailed reason provided) | Revocation was lawful because Stieb committed a new crime on probation and repeatedly violated conditions | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; court permissibly revoked and imposed original sentence |
| Whether intermediate sanctions were required before imposing the original sentence | Stieb implicitly contends revocation was premature without intermediate sanctions | The new-crime exception to K.S.A. 22-3716(c) permits bypassing intermediate sanctions | Held: new-crime exception applied, so intermediate sanctions were not required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dooley, 308 Kan. 641, 423 P.3d 469 (2018) (discretionary nature of revocation and imposing original sentence)
- State v. Gonzalez-Sandoval, 309 Kan. 113, 431 P.3d 850 (2018) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- State v. Thomas, 307 Kan. 733, 415 P.3d 430 (2018) (burden on party alleging abuse of discretion)
- State v. Gumfory, 281 Kan. 1168, 135 P.3d 1191 (2006) (abuse of discretion occurs when no reasonable person would adopt the court's position)