State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Douglas L. Gosser, Appellant. (2026)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Douglas L. Gosser appeals the district court's decision to revoke his probation in three cases and impose the underlying sentences. We granted Gosser's motion for summary disposition under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48). Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural Background

In a 2022 case, Gosser pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine and criminal damage to property. The district court imposed a 23-month underlying prison sentence for possession of methamphetamine and placed Gosser on probation for 12 months. The district court imposed a 5-month underlying prison sentence for criminal damage to property, also with 12 months’ probation, to run concurrent with the sentence for possession of methamphetamine.

In February 2023, during a probation violation hearing on the 2022 case, Gosser admitted to committing new crimes while on probation, including possession of controlled substances. He acknowledged that this violated the terms of his probation in the 2022 case. The district court did not revoke his probation but imposed a three-day jail term, or “quick dip,” as a sanction. In August 2023, Gosser admitted to additional probation violations. The district court did not revoke his probation but imposed a jail term and required completion of a residential program.

In a 2024 case, Gosser pled guilty to burglary. The district court imposed a 19-month underlying prison sentence and placed Gosser on probation for 24 months. The new sentence was imposed to run consecutive to the sentence in the 2022 case. Gosser admitted that he committed the crime while on probation. He acknowledged that this violated the terms of his probation in the 2022 case. The district court did not revoke his probation in the 2022 case but imposed a three-day jail term and extended the term of his probation by 24 months.

The State then alleged Gosser had violated his probation in both cases by committing the new crimes of aggravated battery with a firearm and possession of a firearm by a felon. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found Gosser had violated his probation by committing these new crimes, but it postponed disposition of the probation violations.

In a second 2024 case, Gosser pled guilty to possession of opiates and possession of methamphetamine. The district court imposed a 32-month underlying prison sentence for possession of opiates and placed Gosser on probation for 12 months. The district court imposed a 12-month underlying prison sentence for possession of methamphetamine with 12 months’ probation, to run consecutive to the sentence for possession of opiates. The new sentence was imposed to run consecutive to the sentences in the 2022 case and the first 2024 case. After sentencing, the district court turned to the previously postponed disposition for the probation violations in the 2022 case and the first 2024 case. The district court did not revoke his probation in either case but imposed a three-day jail term in each case. The court warned Gosser that additional probation violations would likely result in revocation of his probation, requiring him to serve the underlying prison sentences.

In September 2025, during a consolidated probation violation hearing on the 2022 case and the two 2024 cases, Gosser admitted that he committed additional new crimes while on probation—including petit theft, felony theft, failure to maintain vehicle liability insurance, and unlawful acts related to the registration of a vehicle. He acknowledged that this violated the terms of his probation in all three cases.

At the probation violation hearing, the State asked the district court to revoke probation and impose the underlying sentences in all three cases without modification. The State pointed out that Gosser had received sanctions for probation violations in the 2022 case and in the first 2024 case, and based on his poor performance on probation, it would not be useful to place him on probation yet again.

Gosser sought reinstatement of probation and another chance to participate in a residential program so he could obtain substance abuse treatment. In the event the court imposed his underlying sentences, he asked the court to modify the sentences to run concurrent instead of consecutive, considering the amount of time he had spent on probation, his age, and recent progress in his personal life.

The district court revoked probation in all three cases based on the commission of new crimes and imposed the underlying sentences without modification.

Gosser appeals the revocation of his probation and the imposition of the underlying prison sentences to run consecutive.

Analysis

Gosser argues that the district court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and denying his request to modify the underlying prison sentences to run concurrent. He does not allege that the district court made an error of fact or law. Gosser does not dispute the existence of multiple probation violations.

Once a probation violation has been established, the district court has discretion to revoke probation and impose the original sentence unless otherwise limited by statute. State v. Tafolla, 315 Kan. 324, 328, 508 P.3d 351 (2022). Under the applicable probation revocation statute, district courts must generally impose an intermediate sanction before revoking probation unless an exception applies. See K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(1), (c)(7). Under one of these exceptions, if the defendant commits a new felony or misdemeanor while on probation, the district court may bypass intermediate sanctions and revoke probation. K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(7)(C).

Following revocation, the district court may modify the underlying sentence to allow the defendant to serve a lesser sentence. See K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(1)(C). The decision to modify or not modify the original sentence is also discretionary with the district court. See State v. Ralston, 63 Kan. App. 2d 447, 455, 529 P.3d 1275 (2023).

An abuse of discretion is a decision that is arbitrary, fanciful, unreasonable, or based on an error of law or fact. Tafolla, 315 Kan. at 328. A decision is unreasonable if “no reasonable person would have taken the view adopted by the district court.” State v. Thomas, 307 Kan. 733, 739, 415 P.3d 430 (2018). Gosser bears the burden of establishing an abuse of discretion. See State v. Peters, 319 Kan. 492, 497-98, 555 P.3d 1134 (2024).

The district court offered Gosser several opportunities to succeed while on probation. Rather than revoke Gosser's probation, the district court imposed intermediate sanctions, ordered he complete a residential program, and reinstated his probation even after the commission of new crimes. The district court gave Gosser every reasonable opportunity to avoid serving his prison sentences. But over the course of three years, Gosser repeatedly demonstrated his inability to fulfill the terms of probation in three different cases. The district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Gosser's probation.

The same reasons persuade us that the district court did not err in denying Gosser's request to modify the underlying prison sentences to run concurrent. K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(5) states that when the defendant commits a new felony while on probation, the new sentence shall be imposed consecutively. This occurred at sentencing in the two 2024 cases, and the district court declined to modify those sentences here given Gosser's recurring violations. The district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the underlying prison sentences to be served without modification.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam: