State v. Wheeler, 123365

Defendant Tanner Wheeler accrued multiple felony convictions and suspended/prison sentences with probation across cases from 2015–2020 after pleas for assault, drug possession, burglary, stolen property, and interference with officers.
He repeatedly violated probation and committed new offenses; subsequent revocations and new sentences were ordered consecutively, producing an aggregate exposure of 122 months' custody.
Shortly before sentencing on the newest convictions, Wheeler moved under K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(1)(C) to modify earlier sentences so certain pairs would run concurrently, which would reduce his total sentence to 57 months. He argued youth, longstanding substance addiction, inability to access treatment while in and out of custody, and rehabilitative goals justified the reduction.
The State opposed modification, pointing to Wheeler’s seven felonies in five years, multiple probation violations, new criminal conduct, and prior opportunities for supervision and treatment that Wheeler squandered.
The district court denied modification; the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed, applying the abuse-of-discretion standard and finding the denial was a reasonable exercise of sentencing revocation discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying Wheeler's motion to modify sentences upon probation revocation (to make certain earlier sentences concurrent)?	Wheeler: concurrent terms needed because he is young, has substance-use disorder, lacked access to treatment while cycling in/out of custody, and a reduced sentence would better serve rehabilitation and sentencing goals.	State: Wheeler committed multiple new felonies and numerous probation violations despite repeated opportunities; public safety and prior failures justify denial.	Court: No abuse of discretion; a reasonable judge could deny the requested reduction given Wheeler’s repeated violations and criminal history.

State v. Weekes, 308 Kan. 1245, 427 P.3d 861 (2018) (recognizing trial court authority to impose a lesser sentence when revoking probation)
State v. McGill, 271 Kan. 150, 22 P.3d 597 (2001) (discussing sentencing options on probation revocation)
State v. Marshall, 303 Kan. 438, 362 P.3d 587 (2015) (articulating abuse-of-discretion standards)
State v. Smith-Parker, 301 Kan. 132, 340 P.3d 485 (2014) (placing burden of proving abuse of discretion on the appellant)
State v. Mossman, 294 Kan. 901, 218 P.3d 153 (2012) (discussing sentencing goals including rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution)