State v. Anzek

• Citation: 469 P.3d 1287 (Table)
• Decision Date: 28 August 2020
• Docket Number: No. 122,260,122,260
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Landon Alan ANZEK, Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Kansas

469 P.3d 1287 (Table)

STATE of Kansas, Appellee,

v.Landon Alan ANZEK, Appellant.

No. 122,260

Court of Appeals of Kansas.

Opinion filed August 28, 2020.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Per Curiam:

Landon Alan Anzek appeals the district court's decision to revoke his probation. We granted Anzek's motion for summary disposition under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 47). After a review of the record, we affirm.

This is the second time Anzek has appealed his probation revocation. The opinion in his first appeal summarizes the pertinent facts preceding the first probation revocation hearing:

"In accordance with a plea agreement, Anzek pleaded guilty to burglary, criminal use of a financial card, and two counts of theft. Because his criminal history score was A, Anzek faced a presumptive prison sentence. But the State recommended a dispositional departure to probation as part of the plea agreement. The court sentenced Anzek to 32 months in prison, but it granted the dispositional departure and placed him on probation for 24 months. With Anzek's consent, the court, in January 2015, extended his probation term for one year.

"Then, in April 2015, the State asked the court to revoke Anzek's probation alleging that he failed to report on several days, failed to make any payments on his court-ordered costs, and used alcohol and drugs. Anzek stipulated to violating his probation and the district court imposed a three-day ‘quick dip’ jail sanction.

"Once again, this time in December 2015, the State sought to revoke Anzek's probation, alleging that he violated the conditions of his probation by:

• failing to attend a preemployment class or meet with his intensive supervision officer as scheduled;

• failing to attend therapy classes;

• failing to pay court fines/fees since July 2015;

• failing to report for drug and alcohol testing;

• testing positive for using amphetamine, methamphetamine, and cocaine." State v. Anzek , No. 118,461, 2018 WL 5851517, at *1 (Kan. App. 2018) (unpublished opinion).

The district court held a probation violation hearing during which Anzek stipulated to violating his probation. After considering its options, the district court chose to revoke Anzek's probation and impose his original prison sentence. It relied on the public safety exception to bypass intermediate sanctions. Anzek appealed, arguing that the district court failed to make particularized findings in support of the exception as required by K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 22-3716(c)(9). This court agreed. It vacated the order imposing Anzek's prison sentence and remanded for the district court to either impose an intermediate sanction or set forth with particularity its reason for invoking an exception as K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 22-3716(c)(9) required. Anzek , 2018 WL 5851517, at *4.

On remand, the district court provided the following reasons to support its use of the public safety exception:

• Anzek's failure to report or attend court-ordered sessions,

• that his whereabouts were unknown for at least a week,

• his failure to pay court costs and restitution,

• his failure to remaining drug free,

• his criminal history of category A,

• his conviction for an aggravated burglary that he pled down to a residential burglary, and

• his five convictions from 2009 for aggravated assault.

It also noted that imposing an intermediate sanction at the time of the first probation violation hearing would have been ineffective.

Next, the court asserted that history is the best prognosticator of future actions and that while Anzek was not reporting he was doing drugs and engaging in other criminal activity. Finally, the court reiterated that Anzek was a public safety risk for not following through on probation, using a firearm in an aggravated robbery, and committing an aggravated burglary.

Based on these facts, the court determined that the public safety exception applied and allowed the court to bypass...