State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Ricky Dion Dunklin, Appellant. (2026)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ricky Dion Dunklin timely appeals from the district court's decision to revoke his probation and impose his underlying sentences based on its findings he disappeared for 11 months and absconded until his arrest in California. Dunklin contends the district court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve his underlying sentence without first imposing an intermediate sanction. He argues failing to report and later being discovered in another state—California—does not show he intended to secret himself away or otherwise evade legal process. Contrary to Dunklin's arguments, we find the evidence presented at the revocation hearing provided a proper basis from which the district court could determine Dunklin intentionally failed to participate in his probation conditions and absconded. We affirm.

Dunklin was convicted of aggravated battery, criminal threat, and two counts of domestic battery, all person-related crimes. In October 2023, he was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment and 18 months in jail, suspended to 24 months’ supervised probation. Dunklin's probation did not go well. In February 2024, Dunklin admitted to his probation supervisor he had used marijuana, and in March 2024, he admitted he had violated a no-contact order. The State moved to revoke Dunklin's probation, and a probation violation warrant was issued and served on him in March 2024. Dunklin then missed a scheduled meeting with his probation supervisor on April 2, 2024, and failed to appear in court on April 16, 2024, to address the allegations in the probation violation warrant. Dunklin was eventually apprehended in Orange County, California, in February 2025. The terms of Dunklin's probation did not allow him to travel out of state without permission from his probation supervisor. Dunklin never requested permission to leave the State of Kansas.

The district court found Dunklin violated the terms of his probation by:

• failing to report to his probation supervisor;

• failing to complete a batterer's intervention program; and

• violating the no-contact order by continuing to have contact with the victim.

The district court further found it was not required to impose intermediate sanctions before revoking Dunklin's probation because he had absconded from supervision based on its findings:

• Dunklin had been served with the original probation violation warrant in March 2024;

• He subsequently appeared in court in March 2024, but the hearing was continued, and Dunklin was ordered to report to his probation supervisor and appear for another hearing in April 2024;

• Dunklin failed to report to his probation supervisor and failed to appear as ordered in April 2024; and

• Dunklin had no further contact with his probation supervisor after March 2024 and was ultimately arrested in California in February 2025.

Once a probation violation is established, a district court has discretion to revoke probation unless otherwise limited by statute. State v. Tafolla, 315 Kan. 324, 328, 508 P.3d 351 (2022); see K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(1) (requiring graduated sanctions before revocation in certain circumstances). 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. Ingham, 308 Kan. 1466, 1469, 430 P.3d 931 (2018). As the party asserting the district court abused its discretion, Dunklin bears the burden of showing such abuse of discretion. See State v. Crosby, 312 Kan. 630, 635, 479 P.3d 167 (2021).

A district court is not required to impose an intermediate sanction under K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(1) before revoking probation if it finds the probationer absconded from supervision. K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(7)(D). As our Supreme Court noted in State v. Dooley, 308 Kan. 641, 657, 423 P.3d 469 (2018), for a person to abscond from probation, the person must “engage[ ] in some course of action (or inaction) with the conscious intent to hide from or otherwise evade the legal process.”

Dunklin does not contest the district court's finding that he violated the terms of his probation. Rather, he asserts the district court erroneously determined he absconded from probation. However, Dunklin's actions reflect an intent to hide from or evade legal process. He failed to appear for a hearing when ordered; he stopped reporting to his probation supervisor for nearly a year; and his whereabouts were unknown until he was arrested in California—a place he did not have permission to travel to. Based on this evidence, the district court properly found the totality of the evidence established Dunklin absconded from probation within our Supreme Court's controlling interpretation of the term. See 308 Kan. at 657. Thus, we affirm the district court's decision to revoke Dunklin's probation and remand him to serve his underlying sentences.

Affirmed.

Schroeder, J.: