State v. Todd, 123278

Todd pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine and marijuana and received a dispositional departure: 12 months' probation with an underlying 40‑month prison sentence.
The State moved to revoke probation after Todd admitted multiple probation violations, and the district court revoked probation and imposed the underlying sentence.
On first appeal the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded because the district court had applied the 2017 version of the intermediate‑sanctions statute rather than the 2016 version that governed offenses committed before July 1, 2017.
On remand the district court again revoked probation, finding that intermediate sanctions would jeopardize public safety and would not serve Todd’s welfare.
The Court of Appeals holds the district court complied with the appellate mandate (i.e., applied the 2016 statute) but failed to make sufficiently particularized findings required to bypass intermediate sanctions under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22‑3716(c)(9).
Result: reversal of the revocation and remand for a new probation violation hearing consistent with the 2016 statute.

Issue	Todd's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the district court exceeded the appellate mandate on remand by revoking probation instead of imposing intermediate sanctions	The mandate required resentencing under the correct intermediate‑sanctions scheme, which Todd reads as requiring an intermediate sanction	The mandate required application of the correct (2016) scheme but did not foreclose exceptions in that scheme permitting revocation	Court: Mandate required application of the 2016 statute but did not mandate an intermediate sanction; revocation could proceed only if an exception in the 2016 statute applied
Whether the district court made the statutorily required particularized findings to bypass intermediate sanctions under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22‑3716(c)(9)	The court failed to set forth particularized, detailed reasons showing how public safety would be jeopardized or Todd's welfare would not be served by intermediate sanctions	The district court’s findings (probation performance, criminal history, dispositional departure) were sufficient to justify bypassing intermediate sanctions	Court: Findings were too generalized; the court must state distinct, detailed reasons explaining how an intermediate sanction would jeopardize public safety or not serve offender welfare — revocation reversed and remanded

State v. Coleman, 311 Kan. 332 (clarifies which version of K.S.A. 22‑3716 applies based on date of offense and explains 2017 amendment added dispositional‑departure exception)
State v. McFeeters, 52 Kan. App. 2d 45 (requires particularized findings to invoke public‑safety/offender‑welfare exception to bypass intermediate sanctions)
State v. Duran, 56 Kan. App. 2d 1268 (holds broad generalizations are insufficient; court cannot require appellate courts to infer particularized reasons)
Gannon v. State, 303 Kan. 682 (applies rule that appellate mandate must be followed and explains how to interpret mandate and attendant circumstances)
State v. Ingham, 308 Kan. 1466 (sets abuse‑of‑discretion standard for sentencing/probation revocation review)
State v. Kelly, 298 Kan. 965 (preservation rule for appellate review)
State v. Alvarez, 309 Kan. 203 (question‑of‑law exception to preservation when statute/mandate interpretation is dispositive)