State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Anthony Lovell Cockrill, Appellant. (2026)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Anthony Lovell Cockrill appeals the district court's decision to revoke his probation and impose his prison and jail sentences. We granted Cockrill's motion for summary disposition of his appeal under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48). In addition, the State filed a response to the motion for summary disposition. Following review, we affirm.

Cockrill pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine, identity theft, making false information, and buying sexual relations. Cockrill was sentenced to 33 months in prison and a consecutive 12-month jail term. Cockrill's sentences were suspended and he was placed on probation for 12 months.

A short time after sentencing, Cockrill's probation officer filed the first of several probation revocation warrants. The first warrant alleged that Cockrill had failed to report to his court services officer as directed, failed to enter drug and alcohol treatment, and failed to provide proof of full-time employment.

Another warrant was filed a few months later, and alleged that Cockrill had failed to refrain from using drugs. The warrant also alleged that Cockrill had committed the offenses of petit theft, interference with law enforcement, possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving while revoked.

A third warrant was issued shortly after the second, and alleged that Cockrill had failed to complete a mental health evaluation.

The district court held a probation revocation hearing where Cockrill waived his right to an evidentiary hearing and admitted to most of the allegations in the probation revocation warrants, including that he had been convicted of petit theft in Wichita Municipal Court. As a result, the district court revoked Cockrill's probation and ordered him to serve his prison and jail sentences. On appeal, Cockrill contends that the district court abused its discretion by imposing his sentences rather than reinstating probation.

The decision to revoke probation involves two steps: (1) a factual determination that the probationer violated a condition of probation; and (2) a discretionary determination of the appropriate disposition in light of the proven violations. See State v. Horton, 308 Kan. 757, 760-61, 423 P.3d 548 (2018). Cockrill does not dispute that he violated his probation, leaving only the question of whether the district court abused its discretion in determining the disposition.

We review the district court's decision to revoke probation for an abuse of discretion. State v. Tafolla, 315 Kan. 324, 328, 508 P.3d 351 (2022). “A court abuses its discretion if the judicial decision (1) is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; (2) is based on an error of law; (3) or is based on an error of fact.” 315 Kan. at 328. Cockrill does not allege any error of law or fact. Thus, we are left to determine whether “no reasonable person would have taken the position taken by the trial court.” State v. Gumfory, 281 Kan. 1168, 1170, 135 P.3d 1191 (2006). As the party asserting an abuse of discretion, Cockrill bears the burden of proof. See Tafolla, 315 Kan. at 328.

Here, Cockrill admitted to violating his probation by committing new crimes, failing to report as directed, failing to enter drug and alcohol treatment, using illegal drugs, failing to provide proof of full-time employment, and failing to obtain a mental health evaluation. The district court noted its concern that Cockrill had failed to successfully complete probation in more than one case. The district court stated, “I think you can see the more than significant concerns I have. You really don't do anything on any of your probation or any of your court dates. All you do is quit showing up and then stay on warrant for months at a time.”

We see no evidence here that Cockrill was making strides toward the successful completion of his probation. Cockrill has failed to meet his burden of proof to show that no reasonable person would agree with the district court's decision to revoke his probation and impose his sentences.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam: