State v. Thomas
123629
| Kan. Ct. App. | Dec 10, 2021Background
- Thomas pled guilty in 17CR3495 to aggravated escape (Oct. 2017); sentenced to 15 months, suspended to 18 months probation.
- While on that probation he committed new crimes (Mar. 2018) and pled guilty in 18CR758 to burglary, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, criminal threat, and theft; received a 58-month sentence with disposition to 24 months probation consecutive to 17CR3495.
- Multiple probation-violation warrants followed; Thomas repeatedly admitted violations, received revocations and reinstatements, extensions of probation, and short jail sanctions.
- State alleged Thomas left a residential work-release facility without permission (aggravated escape from custody). Facility video and a corrections officer supported the allegation; Thomas did not present evidence and admitted other violations.
- The district court allowed the State to reopen its case to request judicial notice of a journal entry placing Thomas at the facility; the court took judicial notice and found two probation violations (failure to follow staff instructions and aggravated escape).
- At disposition the court revoked probation and ordered Thomas to serve his full underlying prison sentences in both cases; Thomas appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Thomas' Argument | State/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove probation violations | Insufficient proof of aggravated escape and of court-ordered placement at the facility | Admissions, officer testimony, video, and judicial notice of journal entry established violations by a preponderance | Evidence sufficient; single probation violation (not following staff instructions) alone supports revocation (affirmed) |
| Whether the court abused discretion by allowing State to reopen and take judicial notice | Reopen was improper and prejudicial because State waited until after resting | Court may reopen for good cause; court can take judicial notice of its own files (K.S.A. 60-409); reopening was within discretion | No abuse; issue also waived by Thomas’ briefing failures (affirmed) |
| Whether revocation and imposition of full sentences was an abuse of discretion | Revocation and full sentences were excessive given alternatives | Court has broad discretion; Thomas committed a new crime while on probation and had multiple prior violations | No abuse; reasonable person could agree with revocation and imposition of underlying sentences (affirmed) |
| Whether statutory graduated intermediate sanctions had to be applied before revocation | Court should have imposed intermediate sanctions before revoking probation | Exception allows revocation without prior sanctions if offender commits a new felony or misdemeanor while on probation | Exception applies because Thomas committed a new crime while on probation; prior sanctions not required (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gumfory, 281 Kan. 1168 (preponderance standard to prove probation violation)
- State v. Arnett, 307 Kan. 648 (issues not briefed are waived)
- State v. Horton, 292 Kan. 437 (allowing party to reopen case reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Salary, 309 Kan. 479 (improper briefing waives issues on appeal)
- State v. Coleman, 311 Kan. 332 (district court discretion to revoke probation)
- State v. Huckey, 51 Kan. App. 2d 451 (statutory graduated sanctions and exceptions)
- State v. Ballou, 310 Kan. 591 (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- State v. Thomas, 307 Kan. 733 (defendant's burden to show abuse of discretion)