State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Edson Eddie Mercado, Appellant. (2026)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Edson Mercado appeals the district court's orders revoking his probation and imposing the original sentences in three cases. We granted Mercado's motion for summary disposition under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48). After carefully reviewing the record, we affirm the district court's judgment.

Mercado pleaded guilty to arson in one case and to interference with law enforcement in another. The district court conducted a joint sentencing hearing for both cases in June 2024 and sentenced Mercado to 36 months’ incarceration for the arson conviction and 14 months’ incarceration for the interference conviction, to be served consecutively. The court then suspended those sentences and imposed a controlling probation term of 24 months.

In July 2024, the State moved to revoke Mercado's probation, alleging he had not reported to his probation officer on four occasions, submitted to random drug testing, or made payments toward the court costs he owed. The court ordered Mercado to serve a three-day jail sanction and reinstated probation.

In April 2025, Mercado pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in a third case. At the same hearing, Mercado acknowledged that he had also violated his probation in the earlier two cases.

The district court held a joint sentencing and disposition hearing for all three cases. During the hearing, the parties recommended a downward dispositional departure to probation in Mercado's third case. Mercado informed the court about his difficulties coping with the loss of his sons and wife; he also explained that he did not use drugs and rarely drank alcohol. The district court expressed concern about Mercado's behavior—particularly his alcohol abuse, which the record supported—and emphasized that Mercado was required to engage in mental-health assistance programs as part of his probation. The court then sentenced Mercado to 31 months in prison in the third case, to run consecutive to the two other sentences, but suspended that sentence and granted a downward dispositional departure to 24 months’ probation. The district court stressed that it granted Mercado probation over incarceration because it was “more important ․ to try to get you some treatment to help you with your issues.” As for Mercado's earlier two cases, the district court ordered another three-day jail sanction for those violations.

Unfortunately, Mercado continued to struggle to comply with his probation terms. The month after his sentencing hearing, the State moved to revoke Mercado's probation, alleging that he did not report, submit to drug testing, or follow through with substance-abuse assessment. Mercado admitted these violations and asked the court to impose a 60-day jail sanction rather than revoke his probation. The district court revoked Mercado's probation in all three cases and ordered him to serve his original sentences imposed, for a controlling term of 81 months in prison. Mercado appeals.

At its core, probation is an act of judicial lenity. When a person violates the terms of their probation, a district court has the discretion to extend probation, impose other sanctions, or revoke probation unless the court is otherwise limited by statute. See K.S.A. 22-3716; State v. Tafolla, 315 Kan. 324, 328, 508 P.3d 351 (2022). We will reverse a district court's exercise of this discretion only when the court abuses it—that is, when the court's decision is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, or based on an error of law or fact. 315 Kan. at 328; State v. Levy, 313 Kan. 232, 237, 485 P.3d 605 (2021). Mercado bears the burden of showing such an error occurred in this case. See State v. Stafford, 296 Kan. 25, 45, 290 P.3d 562 (2012).

Mercado does not argue that the district court's decision was based on a legal or factual error. He admitted to violating the conditions of his probation. And Kansas law permits a district court to revoke probation when intermediate sanctions have already been imposed or when the original probation term resulted from a dispositional departure, as was the case here. K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(1)(C), (c)(7)(B). Mercado argues instead that, given the tragic circumstances he has endured, no reasonable person would have imposed the underlying sentences. But our review of the record reveals no abuse of discretion.

The record shows that the district court repeatedly extended Mercado's probation in light of the personal difficulties he was facing, but Mercado still could not comply with the terms of his release. At the June 2024 sentencing hearing, Mercado told the court that his two sons had recently been killed, and the court granted his request for probation. A few months later, the court ordered Mercado to serve a jail sanction for probation violations. At the May 2025 sentencing hearing on the aggravated-assault conviction, Mercado again argued for a dispositional departure, explaining that he had been the victim of a shooting, had been unable to walk, and was reacting adversely to medication. The court again granted Mercado's request and emphasized the importance of his participation in available mental-health programs. Yet the following month, Mercado was before the court again with multiple probation violations.

The district court ultimately revoked Mercado's probation after finding these repeated violations demonstrated his inability to pursue the treatment he needed. The court's explanation was reasonable and within its discretion. We affirm the district court's judgment.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam: