STATE v. FARLEY (2026)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Austin Farley appeals the sentencing court's refusal to grant him a durational departure sentence from 63 to 55 months. We granted his motion for summary disposition of his appeal under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48). Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Farley pled guilty to aggravated burglary, a severity level five person felony, and theft, a class A misdemeanor. In a separate case, 25CR303, Farley pled guilty to burglary, a severity level seven felony, and theft, a severity level nine felony, in exchange for the dismissal of a criminal damage to property charge.

Farley moved for downward dispositional and durational departures. The court granted Farley a downward dispositional departure to probation but denied the durational departure. The court found the following reasons for departure: the role substance abuse played in the commission of the crime, his willingness to get substance abuse treatment, and his performance on bond pending sentencing. The court sentenced him to 63 months in prison across both cases with probation granted for 36 months. Farley timely appeals.

Despite the fact that the sentencing court had found substantial and compelling reasons to grant him a dispositional departure sentence, it ruled there were no reasons to grant a durational departure sentence. Farley contends this is an abuse of discretion.

The law we must follow is well settled. Either the State or a defendant may appeal a sentence that departs from the presumptive sentence. K.S.A. 21-6820(a). Appellate courts review decisions on departure motions for abuse of discretion. See State v. Morley, 312 Kan. 702, 711, 479 P.3d 928 (2021). A judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if (1) it is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; (2) it is based on an error of law; or (3) it is based on an error of fact. State v. Younger, 320 Kan. 98, 137-38, 564 P.3d 744 (2025).

A sentencing court must impose the presumptive sentence set by the sentencing guidelines unless the court finds “substantial and compelling reasons” to impose a departure sentence. K.S.A. 21-6815(a). “Substantial means ‘real, not imagined, and of substance, not ephemeral.’ And a compelling reason is one that ‘forces the court, by the facts of the case, to abandon the status quo and to venture beyond the sentence that it would ordinarily impose.’ [Citation omitted.]” State v. Montgomery, 314 Kan. 33, 36, 494 P.3d 147 (2021).

It is important to note that “[t]he mere presence of mitigating factors does not compel a sentencing court to depart from a presumptive sentence.” State v. Fowler, 315 Kan. 335, Syl. ¶ 2, 508 P.3d 347 (2022).

Farley cites no substantial or compelling reasons supporting his argument for further departure. The district court did not have to grant Farley any departure. He committed a person felony among other crimes. He got the benefit of a dispositional departure and the dismissal of one of his charges. It cannot be said that no reasonable person would have denied the durational departure motion.

Affirmed.

Hill, J.: