State v. J.H., Jr.
Decision Date | 06 July 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 96,770.,96,770. |
Citation | 197 P.3d 467,287 Kan. 574 |
Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. J.H., Jr., Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
LeRoy C. Rose, of Garden City, for appellant.
Lara Blake Bors, assistant county attorney, John P. Wheeler, county attorney, and Paul Morrison, attorney general for appellee.
Before RULON, C.J, GREENE, J., and KNUDSON, S.J.
J.H. was convicted as an extended jurisdiction juvenile pursuant to K.S.A. 38-16,126. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke probation alleging J.H. violated the provisions of the juvenile sentence and committed new offenses. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court revoked J.H.'s probation, ordering that he serve the 48-month adult criminal sentence previously imposed pursuant to 38-16,126(a)(2). J.H. appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to establish probation violation and the trial court's refusal to consider sentencing alternatives before sending J.H. to prison.
We affirm.
The underlying facts are not in material dispute. J.H. was convicted of aggravated battery in violation of K.S.A. 21-3414(a)(1)(A), a severity level 4 person felony. Under K.S.A. 21-4704, J.H.'s sentence carries a presumptive disposition of imprisonment. At the evidentiary hearing to revoke probation, the State presented evidence that J.H. had violated the provisions of probation and committed new criminal offenses. J.H. did not present any evidence at the hearing. The trial court revoked probation and ordered J.H. to serve the alternative 48-month adult sentence that had been previously imposed.
Our standard of review is to ascertain whether substantial competent evidence was presented at the revocation hearing to support revocation. K.S.A. 38-16,126(b). State v. Luna, 271 Kan. 573, 574-75, 24 P.3d 125 (2001).
On appeal, J.H. argues the police officer's testimony was not corroborated and the brass knuckles and other physical evidence were not introduced in evidence. All true, but corroboration and the admission of the instruments of the crime are not necessary to justify revocation of J.H.'s probation. The fact is that there was substantial competent evidence introduced through the testimony of witnesses to establish the violations of probation. Undoubtedly, the State's failure to present additional corroborative evidence might influence the trier of fact but does not present a persuasive issue on appeal. An appellate court does not weigh evidence or normally look to what was not introduced in evidence when considering a sufficiency issue; our duty is to consider the adequacy of the evidence that was presented. Under our standard of review, the trial court's findings are sufficient to support a conclusion J.H. violated probation.
J.H. contends under K.S.A. 38-16,126 the district court was required to consider alternatives other than commitment. The State argues under 38-16,126 the district court has no discretion other than to order commitment.
Interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which we exercise unlimited review. State v. Bryan, 281 Kan. 157, 130 P.3d 85 (2006).
K.S.A. 38-16,126(b) (now K.S.A.2006 Supp. 38-2364(b)) provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. J.D.H., 107,916.
...language prevents the district court from doing anything other than imposing the underlying adult sentence.In State v. J.H., 40 Kan.App.2d 643, 646, 197 P.3d 467 (2007), the court examined the prior version of K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38–2364– K.S.A. 38–16,126 –which contained the same "shall revo......
- State v. Henson, 98,573.
-
In re C.d.a.-C.
...panels of this court have addressed juvenile offenders' appeals from probation revocations. See generally State v. J.H.,40 Kan.App.2d 643, 197 P.3d 467 (2007)(juvenile offender appealed court's revocation of probation for sufficiency of evidence after court revoked juvenile's probation and ......
-
In re J.K.P.
...433, 955 P.2d 1302 (1998). When applying this standard of review, an appellate court does not reweigh evidence. See State v. J.H., 40 Kan.App.2d 643, 645, 197 P.3d 467 (2007). J.K.P. was adjudicated guilty of disorderly conduct in violation of K.S.A.2011 Supp. 21–6203. The statute states in......