State of Kansas, Appellee, v. James Donald Scott, Appellant. (2026)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Defendant James Donald Scott appeals the Geary County District Court's decision revoking his probation in two cases because he committed new crimes and ordering him to serve the underlying sentences in those cases with a combined prison term of 37 months. We granted Scott's motion for summary disposition under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48). The district court acted within its judicial discretion in revoking Scott's probation and ordering him to serve the consecutive sentences. We, therefore, affirm the district court's rulings.

Factual and Procedural Background

In early 2022, Scott pleaded no contest in case No. 19CR768 to possession of methamphetamine, a severity level 5 drug felony; possession of drug paraphernalia, a class B misdemeanor; criminal trespass, a class B misdemeanor; and theft, a class A misdemeanor. The district court imposed a controlling sentence of 12 months of incarceration and placed Scott on probation for 18 months. The underlying sentence consisted of 11 months in prison for the felony, with concurrent misdemeanor sentences of 6 months, 6 months, and 12 months in jail. Scott faced multiple probation violations in the district court, including an arrest for possession of illegal drugs and paraphernalia that precipitated his revocation and this appeal.

In July 2023, Scott pleaded no contest in case No. 22CR542 to two counts of possession of methamphetamine, both severity level 5 drug felonies. The district court consolidated the two cases for disposition in October 2023. In the new case, the district court sentenced Scott to 26 months in prison and placed him on probation for 18 months. The district court ordered that the prison sentence run consecutive to the prison sentence in case No. 19CR768. The district court found the new convictions violated Scott's probation and extended Scott's probation in case No. 19CR768 for 18 months from the date of hearing.

In September 2024, the State alleged that Scott had violated the terms of probation in both cases with an arrest two months earlier and his failure to participate in drug and alcohol treatment. At a hearing in January 2025, the district court ruled that the State had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Scott committed new crimes of possessing methamphetamine, a felony, and possessing drug paraphernalia, a misdemeanor. The district court found that Scott had violated the conditions of probation in both cases. The district court continued both cases for disposition of the violations, while Scott remained free on bond.

The district court took up disposition in a hearing in late October 2025. In the meantime, Scott faced trial on the new charges, had his bond revoked for a time, and then posted a reduced bond. At the hearing, Scott acknowledged he never reported to his probation officer after being released on bond. His lawyer argued that Scott was drug addicted and that constituted a disability warranting mitigation. The lawyer also noted Scott's age—he was then 59 years old—and the absence of any violent criminal history as mitigating factors. The district court acknowledged those circumstances but noted Scott's inability to refrain from methamphetamine possession over the course of his extended probation. The district court found Scott's failure to report to his probation officer after he was released on bond to be especially indicative of Scott being unsuited for continued probation. The district court revoked Scott's probation and imposed the underlying sentence in each case, resulting in a controlling prison term of 37 months.

Scott has duly appealed. On appeal, Scott does not dispute the district court's finding that he violated his probation in both cases by committing new crimes. He argues that the district court abused its discretion in sending him to prison based on those violations.

Discussion

When a probation violation has been established, the district court has the authority to continue a defendant on probation, with or without intermediate sanctions or changes in the terms of probation, or to revoke their probation in specified statutory circumstances. See K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(1), (c)(7); State v. Tafolla, 315 Kan. 324, 328, 508 P.3d 351 (2022). We review a district court's disposition decision after it finds a probation violation for abuse of judicial discretion. A district court abuses that broad authority if its decision is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable or is based on an error of law or a mistake of fact. 315 Kan. at 328; State v. Levy, 313 Kan. 232, 237, 485 P.3d 605 (2021). Scott bears the burden of establishing an abuse of discretion. See State v. Stafford, 296 Kan. 25, 45, 290 P.3d 562 (2012) (“The party asserting an abuse of discretion bears the burden of establishing it.”). He has not done so.

Scott argues the district court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve his underlying sentences without having first imposed a lesser sanction entailing a short period of incarceration in the county jail. The argument is untenable because Scott committed new crimes, permitting the district court to revoke his probation without having imposed an intermediate sanction. See K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(7)(C). Scott does not otherwise contend the district court misapplied the law or misunderstood the facts.

The district court's ultimate decision cannot be characterized as wholly unreasonable and, therefore, an abuse of discretion. The throughline in all of Scott's criminal conduct was drug-seeking behavior. Despite multiple opportunities on probation, Scott could not refrain from possessing illegal drugs. Measures short of incarceration were not working, as the district court explained. Other district courts would have come to the same conclusion in comparable circumstances and would have ordered defendants to serve their sentences. Accordingly, the district court acted within its broad discretion here.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam: