State of Kansas, Appellee, v. James Dean Miller, Appellant. (2026)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

James Dean Miller appeals the district court's decision to impose his original prison sentences following the revocation of his probation. We granted his motion for summary disposition under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48). The State did not submit a response. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

In 2022, Miller pleaded no contest to burglary and guilty to criminal possession of a weapon. The district court placed him on probation for 24 months, with an underlying 32-month prison sentence that would run consecutive to Miller's sentence in an earlier case. Less than a year later, the State moved to revoke his probation.

In January 2024, Miller entered a no contest plea to possession of methamphetamine. The district court conducted a bifurcated hearing to address Miller's probation violation in conjunction with the imposition of sentence for his new conviction. Miller stipulated to the probation violation and the district court ordered a 60-day jail sanction and extended his probation period for 24 months. With respect to the new conviction, Miller fell within a presumptive prison sentencing range because the offense marked his third for possession of narcotics. Even so, the district court granted Miller's request for a dispositional departure and placed him on probation for 12 months. It entered an underlying 30-month prison term and ordered it to run consecutive to the sentence imposed in Miller's earlier case for which he was on probation when he committed the instant offense.

Roughly one year later, the State again moved to revoke Miller's probation as a result of his failure to “[r]efrain from violating the law.” The district court ultimately held a combined hearing on all 10 cases for which Miller was on probation. The parties informed the district court that they worked out an agreement through mediation, which included Miller's stipulation to his probation violations and a joint recommendation on a modified prison sentence.

The district court declined to follow the parties’ recommendation for a sentence modification and instead ordered Miller to serve his original sentence. The judge found that Miller was not amenable to probation and informed him, “[Y]ou are receiving a substantial break on the time you were facing with the State agreeing to discharge you unsuccessfully in six cases and dismiss entirely two new cases.”

Once a probation violation is established, a district court has discretion to revoke probation and impose the original sentence unless the court is otherwise limited by statute. State v. Tafolla, 315 Kan. 324, 328, 508 P.3d 351 (2022); see also K.S.A. 22-3716 (requiring graduated sanctions before revocation in certain circumstances). When revoking probation, a district court may impose the original prison sentence or modify it and impose any lesser term. K.S.A. 22-3716(b)(3)(B)(iii), (c)(1)(C); see State v. Weekes, 308 Kan. 1245, 1247-48, 427 P.3d 861 (2018). An appellate court reviews the revocation of probation, as well as the district court's decision to deny an offender's requested sentence modification for abuse of discretion. State v. Reeves, 54 Kan. App. 2d 644, 648, 403 P.3d 655 (2017). Such abuse is said to occur when a district court's decision is grounded in a factual or legal error or is otherwise one with which no reasonable person would agree. State v. Butler, 315 Kan. 18, 21, 503 P.3d 239 (2022). The party asserting an abuse of discretion bears the burden of showing district court error. State v. Peters, 319 Kan. 492, 497-98, 555 P.3d 1134 (2024).

Miller asserts no legal or factual errors, so the only question we must resolve is whether the district court acted unreasonably. Despite acknowledging at the hearing that the district court was under no obligation to accept the recommendation of the parties, Miller characterizes the outcome of that proceeding as unreasonable because the parties recommended modified prison sentences. As the district court stated, a multitude of offenses, spread across a total of 10 cases, were addressed at Miller's hearing. Of those 10 cases, and despite Miller's evident pattern of release onto probation followed by the commission of a new crime, the district court imposed the presumptive sentences in only two cases.

Miller was placed on probation in his first case and in less than a year committed a bevy of new crimes. After those offenses were addressed, Miller remained undeterred and continued to engage in criminal conduct. In light of that remarkable history, we are unable to conclude that no reasonable person would have shared the district court's opinion that Miller's performance on probation did not merit a further sentence modification to decrease his time in custody. Accordingly, we uphold the district court's imposition of Miller's original prison terms.

Affirmed.

Isherwood, J.: