State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Damon Maurice Montgomery, Appellant. (2026)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Damon Maurice Montgomery appeals the district court's decision to revoke his probation and impose his underlying 34-month prison sentence after he stipulated to violating the terms of his probation. On appeal, Montgomery filed a motion for summary disposition under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48). The State did not submit a response and we granted Montgomery's motion. Based on our review of the record on appeal, we find that the district court did not err in revoking Montgomery's probation or in ordering him to serve his underlying sentence. Thus, we affirm the district court's judgment.

Facts

In December 2019, Montgomery pled no contest to the charges of aggravated and simple domestic battery as well as intimidation of a witness. Based on his criminal history score, Montgomery faced a presumptive prison sentence. Nevertheless, as part of the plea agreement, the State agreed to recommend a dispositional departure to probation.

At the sentencing hearing held on February 7, 2020, the district court granted Montgomery's motion for dispositional departure, imposed 24 months of supervised probation, imposed an underlying 34-month term of imprisonment, and ordered postrelease supervision for a period of 12 months. The district court also ordered Montgomery to serve two consecutive weekends in jail as a condition of his probation.

In June 2020, the State moved to impose an intermediate jail sanction or revoke Montgomery's probation based on several probation violations. The motion alleged that Montgomery had failed to report to jail as previously ordered, failed to refrain from using illegal drugs, failed to obtain domestic violence and drug abuse evaluations, failed to report proof of employment, and failed to pay court costs.

It is undisputed that at some point, Montgomery absconded and a probation revocation hearing was not held until April 2025. At the hearing, Montgomery stipulated that he had failed to report to probation as required and that he had not served his jail sanctions. Still, Montgomery asked the district court to continue his probation without imposing any sanction. He asserted that he had medical problems and had recently been approved for a surgery that he had been seeking for five years. He also alleged that he had been living with his father—who had recently died—and was now taking care of his mother. The State requested that Mongomery's probation be revoked.

Ultimately, the district court granted the State's motion to revoke Montgomery's probation. Specifically, the district court found that Montgomery committed several violations of the terms of his probation and had absconded for several years. Moreover, the district court ordered Montgomery to serve his underlying prison sentence.

Thereafter, Montgomery filed a timely notice of appeal.

Analysis

On appeal, Montgomery contends that the district court abused its discretion by unreasonably revoking his probation and imposing his underlying 34-month prison sentence. He argues that the district court should have continued his probation given his poor health. Although he does not deny that he absconded, he appears to justify his actions because he was awaiting surgery and taking care of his elderly mother.

Once a probation violation is established, the district court's decision to revoke probation and impose the original sentence is discretionary unless otherwise limited by statute. State v. Tafolla, 315 Kan. 324, 328, 508 P.3d 351 (2022). If the crime of conviction was a felony and the district court originally ordered probation as a dispositional departure, the district court may revoke probation upon a violation, without a prior intermediate sanction. K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(7)(B).

Accordingly, we review the propriety of the district court's decision to revoke Montgomery's probation and imposing his underlying prison sentence under an abuse of discretion standard. A district court abuses its discretion only if the judicial decision is based on an error of law or fact or is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. Tafolla, 315 Kan. at 328. A decision is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable “ ‘if no reasonable person would have taken the view adopted by the [district] court.’ ” State v. Jones, 306 Kan. 948, 957, 398 P.3d 856 (2017). The defendant bears the burden of establishing an abuse of discretion. See Tafolla, 315 Kan. at 328.

The district court's decision to revoke probation after consistent probation violations and years-long absconding was reasonable. While the district court had authority to grant Montgomery an intermediate sanction rather than revoke his probation, there was no requirement to do so. See K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(1), (c)(7)(B). Also, a reasonable person could have found, just as the district court did, that Montgomery demonstrated an inability to conform to the basic conditions of his probation and revoked his probation as a result.

Under the circumstances presented, we do not find the district court's ruling to be unreasonable. Furthermore, the record does not establish that the district court made an error of law or a mistake of fact. Because Montgomery demonstrates no abuse of discretion, we affirm the district court's revocation of his probation and its imposition of his underlying sentence.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam: