State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Dale Alan Quast, Appellant. (2026)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Dale Alan Quast appeals the district court's decision to revoke his probation and impose the underlying prison term of 36 months. We granted Quast's uncontested motion for summary disposition under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48) in lieu of briefs. After reviewing the record and finding no abuse of discretion, the district court's judgment is affirmed.

Factual and Procedural History

In September 2024, Quast pleaded guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The plea agreement included a joint recommendation for a dispositional departure from the presumptive prison sentence to a 36-month probation period.

At sentencing in November 2024, the district court followed the plea agreement, imposing an underlying 59-month prison term and a 36-month probation term. Among other things, conditions of Quast's probation included not using illegal drugs and complying with all treatment and counseling deemed necessary by his supervising officer or the court.

In both February and May 2025, Quast voluntarily served three-day quick dip sanctions at the request of his community corrections officer, based on Quast's usage of methamphetamine. In September 2025, the State moved to revoke probation, alleging he violated his probation by failing to refrain from the use of illegal drugs and by not complying with treatment and counseling as ordered by the court. Two months later, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the allegations.

The State's case relied on the testimony from Quast's supervising officer, Daren Organ. Organ testified that Quast had not been successful while under his supervision. Between sentencing and August 2025, Quast tested positive for methamphetamine 10 times. In discussing his efforts to support and accommodate Quast, Organ described Quast missing appointments due to medical issues and difficulty getting transportation. Organ added that Quast was allowed to attend sessions via Zoom because of these issues. Organ further noted that he supervised Quast's probation or parole on four other occasions, during which Quast struggled with substance use and was unsuccessful with treatment and counseling. He reported six dates that Quast had missed drug and alcohol counseling. Organ opined that Quast would not be successful on probation and recommended the court impose his prison sentence.

Quast countered the State's evidence through the testimony of his addiction counselor Corrie Zimmerman. Zimmerman confirmed that Quast had lost his wife earlier that year. She testified that, although he initially struggled with treatment, Quast progressed and made efforts towards recovery during the latter part of his treatment. On cross-examination, Zimmerman acknowledged that Quast had not been successful in outpatient treatment but noted he had put in effort. According to Zimmerman, the number of positive methamphetamine tests could have been higher considering Quast's addiction and surrounding circumstances. Zimmerman recommended that Quast be returned to inpatient treatment, stating that she never recommends prison in any circumstance.

Next, Quast offered the testimony of his mental health provider, Laci Leichliter. She testified that Quast actively participated in therapy with her and made progress. She noted it had been very traumatic when Quast lost his wife. She added that Quast had been very engaged in group therapy, sharing that he had been a mentor in jail to other prisoners. Leichliter explained that she and Quast were focusing on trauma work to address the issues underlying his addiction. Leichliter opined that Quast would be “actively working to fight his addiction” for the rest of his life. Leichliter conveyed that she did not recommend prison for cases like Quast's as the mental health work that needed to be done would not happen while incarcerated.

Lastly, Quast testified. He told the court that he has worked on the treatment programs to the best of his ability. He discussed that he had sought out mental health services, attended classes, and decreased his drug use from every day down to sporadically. He attributed the changes to his health and losing his wife. He emphasized that the treatment services he received were helping him learn to navigate his problems without turning to substance use.

In closing, the State reiterated that Quast had not been compliant with the terms of his probation over a 12-month period. It mentioned that this is not Quast's first time being unsuccessful in probation. The State conceded that with continued counseling and therapy Quast may see incremental improvements. However, the State opined that another 12 months of probation would end with Quast back in court. The State made note that Quast's probation was the result of a dispositional departure and asked the court to impose the underlying prison sentence.

Defense counsel emphasized that Quast was attending outpatient counseling and mental health treatment. She reminded the court that Quast had experienced a major trauma with the loss of his wife, affecting his ability to manage his addiction. She stated that Quast realized it was time for a change and that he believed he deserved a chance to continue making progress through the resources available to him. Counsel asked that the court reinstate Quast's probation.

The district court ultimately decided to revoke Quast's probation and impose his underlying prison sentence but acknowledged that there were “[s]trong, legitimate arguments” by both sides. The court emphasized Quast's history of appearing before the court in previous cases involving drug-related crimes and the cycle of him recognizing his addiction, acknowledging that he has a problem, promising that he had learned his lesson, then ultimately committing another crime. The court expressed that the issue had moved beyond simply one of addiction and that Quast's behaviors were not those of a person who had learned from their mistakes, yet acknowledged that prison is not a substitute for treatment.

Quast timely appealed.

Discussion

Quast argues that the district court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and imposing his underlying sentence. Specifically, he argues that no reasonable person would look at the mitigating factors of his case and agree with the district court's decision.

Once a probation violation has been established, the district court has discretion to revoke probation and impose the underlying sentence unless otherwise limited by statute. State v. Tafolla, 315 Kan. 324, 328, 508 P.3d 351 (2022). As a discretionary decision, we review the case to determine whether the court abused its discretion. 315 Kan. at 328. A judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if it is (1) arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; (2) based on an error of law; or (3) based on an error of fact. State v. Younger, 320 Kan. 98, 137-38, 564 P.3d 744 (2025). As the party asserting abuse of discretion, Quast bears the burden of establishing that such abuse occurred. See State v. Peters, 319 Kan. 492, 497-98, 555 P.3d 1134 (2024).

If an offender's probation was originally granted because of a dispositional departure, the district court may revoke probation without first imposing an intermediate sanction. See K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(7)(B) (authorizes bypassing intermediate jail sanctions in dispositional departure cases). Moreover, the court is not required to make particularized findings in order to bypass intermediate sanctions. Tafolla, 315 Kan. at 331.

Quast does not claim that the district court committed an error of law or fact. So, the only question is whether no reasonable person would have agreed with the district court's decision.

Quast faced a presumptive prison sentence, but as part of his plea deal with the State it recommended a dispositional departure to probation. The court granted the departure, allowing him the opportunity to avoid prison by complying with the terms of probation. These terms included no continued drug use and participation in outpatient treatment, neither of which Quast was successful in complying with.

In his 11 months of probation, he tested positive for methamphetamines 10 times, missed scheduled drug and alcohol counseling 6 times, and received inpatient treatment. While he was successful with inpatient treatment, seven of his positive tests occurred after leaving treatment. When his health and transportation became problematic to his attendance at counseling, accommodations were made for his attendance via Zoom. Quast continued to have positive drug tests after receiving both inpatient treatment and twice serving three-day quick dip jail sanctions. Additionally, he has a history of criminal activity that has resulted in repeatedly being placed on probation or parole.

The district court noted the testimony provided, particularly Leichliter's and Zimmerman's, but ultimately found Quast's arguments unpersuasive. While Quast's circumstances can be viewed sympathetically, we cannot conclude that no reasonable person would agree with the district court's decision to revoke probation and implement the underlying prison sentence. Thus, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Quast's probation and ordering him to serve the underlying sentence.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam: