State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Willie C. Arrellano, Appellant. (2026)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Willie C. Arrellano appeals the district court's decision to revoke his probation and impose his underlying 34-month sentence following multiple probation violations, citing no error of law or fact. This court granted Arrellano's motion for summary disposition claiming briefing was unnecessary under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48). Finding no error, the district court's judgment is affirmed.

Factual and Procedural Background

In January 2025, Arrellano entered a guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of felony aggravated battery. In exchange for his guilty plea, the State agreed, among other things, to permit Arrellano to seek a dispositional departure from the presumptive prison grid box sentence. At sentencing, the State recommended the district court follow the plea agreement and impose presumptive imprisonment. Arrellano argued the incident was an accident, stressed his willingness to improve, and pointed out his recent employment as evidence of his amenability to probation.

The district court noted that “it's been 50/50” between sending Arrellano to prison or granting a dispositional departure to probation. The court imposed an underlying sentence of 34 months’ imprisonment with 24 months’ post-release supervision, but granted Arrellano a dispositional departure to 36-months’ probation. After outlining the conditions of probation, the court emphasized that Arrellano's marijuana “problem” was to stay in “control.” Additionally, the court ordered GED completion; handgun safety class; full-time employment; a 10 p.m. curfew; and registration under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), K.S.A. 22-4901 et seq.

In March 2025, one month after sentencing, Arrellano's probation officer filed a warrant alleging Arrellano violated the terms of probation by testing positive for THC on March 4 and 19. Arrellano also failed to enroll in the required GED education program. At the probation violation hearing, Arrellano waived his right to an evidentiary hearing and admitted the allegations in the warrant. The district court reinstated and extended Arrellano's probation and ordered a 72-hour jail sanction, substance abuse treatment, a mental health evaluation and treatment, completion of a cognitive skills class, and extended Arrellano's probation 36 months from that day. Arrellano remained in custody until the start of residential treatment.

Three months later, in June 2025, Arrellano's probation officer filed another warrant alleging Arrellano committed additional probation violations. At the probation violation hearing, Arrellano waived his right to an evidentiary hearing and admitted the allegations, including being out of place of assignment and committing a theft at a residential facility. Concerning the out of place of assignment, two of the instances pertained to complications with Arrellano's work transportation, and the third involved him signing out early for his shift, when he was “almost called AWOL.” The theft involved Arrellano picking up money that had been dropped on the floor. The district court ordered a 72-hour jail sanction and reinstated probation. The court warned Arrellano by stating, “you're going to prison if this continues.”

In September 2025, Arrellano's probation officer filed yet another warrant alleging eight probation violations during August and September, including for being out of place of assignment; manipulation of staff; borrowing/loaning/trading/giving away property to another client; failure to follow staff instructions; disrespect to staff; and failure to make his monthly restitution payment. At the probation violation hearing, Arrellano waived his right to an evidentiary hearing and admitted the violations. Arrellano argued that mental health and family issues contributed to his violations and requested a 60-day sanction and the reinstatement of probation.

Citing his previous violations, the court noted, “there is just no indication you're going to be able to make these changes.” The district court revoked Arrellano's probation and imposed the 34-month prison sentence with 24-month post-release supervision.

Arrellano appealed.

Discussion

After a probation violation is proven, unless otherwise prohibited by statute, the district court has discretion to revoke the defendant's probation and impose the underlying sentence. State v. Tafolla, 315 Kan. 324, 328, 508 P.3d 351 (2022). This court reviews the district court's revocation decision for an abuse of discretion. The district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an error of law, an error of fact, or is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. State v. Younger, 320 Kan. 98, 137-38, 564 P.3d 744 (2025). Arrellano has the burden of showing the court abused its discretion in revoking his probation. State v. Peters, 319 Kan. 492, 497-98, 555 P.3d 1134 (2024).

Arrellano claims merely that the district court erred in revoking his probation and imposing his underlying sentence without an allegation of how or why the decision was an error. Here, the district court granted Arrellano a dispositional departure to probation from a presumptive prison sentence. Therefore, after finding a probation violation the district court was permitted to revoke Arrellano's probation without first imposing any intermediate sanctions under K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(7)(B). Arrellano waived his right to evidentiary hearings and admitted to the probation violations alleged at all three hearings. This court finds no error of fact in the district court's findings that Arrellano violated probation as alleged and no error of law in the district court's revocation decision.

Finally, the district court's decision was not arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. A district court's decision is unreasonable if no reasonable person would have adopted the court's view. State v. Baker, 297 Kan. 482, 484, 301 P.3d 706 (2013). Arrellano violated his probation on numerous occasions resulting in three separate violation hearings less than one year into his probation term. Even though it was not required, the district court granted Arrellano some grace by ordering jail sanctions and permitted him to continue with probation after the first two violation hearings. Despite being given multiple opportunities to remain on probation, Arrellano could not be successful. The court noted this fact before revoking Arrellano's probation, saying, “if this was your first [probation violation], we're having a different conversation ․ but it's not. It's your third.” This court cannot say that no reasonable person would have adopted the district court's decision to revoke Arrellano's probation after the third probation violation hearing.

Accordingly, Arrellano has failed to show the district court abused its discretion in revoking his probation and imposing the underlying prison sentence.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam: