plain language of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3716(c)(1)(E) grants
jurisdiction to the district court to impose the underlying
sentence, or any lesser sentence, upon revoking a
appellate court has jurisdiction to review the district
court's denial of a defendant's request for a lesser
sentence upon the revocation of probation, even if the
sentence originally imposed was a presumptive sentence under
appellate court reviews the district court's decision to
deny a defendant's request for a lesser sentence upon the
revocation of probation for an abuse of discretion.
from Riley District Court; Meryl D. Wilson, judge. Affirmed.
for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2016 Supp.
21-6820(g) and (h).
Malone, P.J., Pierron and Bruns, JJ.
Michael Reeves appeals the district court's denial of his
request for a lesser prison sentence following the revocation
of his probation. We granted Reeves' motion for summary
disposition in lieu of briefs pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
7.041A (2017 Kan. S.Ct. R. 48). The State has filed no
response. Finding that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Reeves' request for a lesser
sentence, we affirm the district court's decision.
March 17, 2014, Reeves pled no contest to one count of
conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. On March 24, 2014,
the district court imposed the standard presumptive sentence
of 32 months' imprisonment but made border box findings
and placed Reeves on probation for 36 months to be supervised
by community corrections.
December 2014 to November 2016, Reeves returned to court five
times for probation violation hearings. Over the course of
that two years, he was ordered to serve 2-day and 30-day jail
sanctions, as well as a 120-day sanction with the Department
of Corrections. He also received sanctions from his probation
officer at least two times.
hearing on November 14, 2016, Reeves stipulated to violating
his probation on numerous grounds, including failing to
report to community corrections as directed and testing
positive for drugs. Reeves told the judge that
"probation ain't working out for me, " and he
said he wanted to "just go and do my time."
However, he asked the district court to reduce his sentence
from 32 months' imprisonment to 23 months. Reeves
acknowledged that he had a drug problem. His counsel pointed
out that Reeves was 16 years old at the time of the offense,
and he was only 20 years old at the time of the hearing. The
State objected to any sentence modification and pointed out
that Reeves had "completely disappeared from his
probation." The district court revoked Reeves'
probation, specifically denied his request for a sentence
modification, and ordered that he serve the remainder of his
original sentence. Reeves timely appealed from that decision.
appeal, Reeves does not argue that the district court erred
in revoking his probation. After all, Reeves explicitly asked
the district court to revoke his probation so that he could
go and serve his time. However, Reeves claims that the
district court "abused its discretion by [ordering him
to serve] his full underlying sentence (32 months) after
revoking his probation, rather than the 23 months for which
of Reeves' claim involves statutory interpretation and
raises issues of appellate jurisdiction. Interpretation of a
statute is a question of law over which appellate courts have
unlimited review. State v. Collins, 303 Kan. 472,
473-74, 362 P.3d 1098 (2015). Likewise, whether jurisdiction
exists is a question of law ...