State v. Jones, 011521 KSCA, 122, 339

Docket Nº:122, 339, 122, 340, 122, 341
Opinion Judge:Per Curiam.
Party Name:State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Douglas Steven Jones, Appellant.
Judge Panel:Before Arnold-Burger, C.J., Green and Malone, JJ.
Case Date:January 15, 2021
Court:Court of Appeals of Kansas

State of Kansas, Appellee,


Douglas Steven Jones, Appellant.

Nos. 122, 339, 122, 340, 122, 341

Court of Appeals of Kansas

January 15, 2021


Appeal from Saline District Court; Patrick H. Thompson, judge.

Submitted by the parties for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6820(g) and (h).

Before Arnold-Burger, C.J., Green and Malone, JJ.


Per Curiam.

Douglas Steven Jones appeals the district court's order revoking his probation and imposing his underlying prison sentences. He also challenges the use of his criminal history at sentencing, contending it violated his constitutional rights. We granted Jones' motion for summary disposition under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2020 Kan. S.Ct. R. 47). The State responded, asserting that the district court's decision to revoke probation was not an abuse of discretion and the use of Jones' criminal history at sentencing did not violate his constitutional rights. Finding no error, we affirm in part and dismiss in part for the reasons that follow.

Factual and Procedural History

In January 2016, Jones pled guilty to one count of unlawful possession of a controlled substance-methamphetamine, in case No. 15CR939 (Case 2). Jones was on probation in case No. 14CR1094 (Case 1) at the time of Case 2, so he also stipulated that he violated his probation in Case 1. At the close of the plea hearing and revocation hearing, the court released Jones on an appearance bond pending a sentencing and disposition hearing.

Two months later, the State charged Jones with aggravated failure to appear in case No. 16CR434 (Case 3) because he had not shown up for the scheduled sentencing hearing in Case 2. He later pleaded guilty to this charge, after which the court handled sentencing in both cases at a hearing in July 2016. Based on a criminal history score of B, the court imposed the presumptive aggravated sentence of 36 months' imprisonment in Case 2 and the presumptive aggravated sentence of 12 months' imprisonment in Case 3. As to both cases, the court granted Jones' requests for dispositional departures and imposed a probation term of 18 months. The court also reinstated Jones' probation in Case 1 for 18 months in accordance with the probation in the newer cases, to begin after serving a 120-day jail sanction.

Eleven months later, the district court found Jones had violated the terms of his probation by failing to report to his probation officer or complete urinalysis(UA) testing. The court imposed a three-day jail sanction in Cases 2 and 3 and reinstated Jones' probation for 18 months. The court also revoked Jones' probation in Case 1 and ordered him to serve the rest of his underlying sentence before beginning the reinstated 18-month probation term in the other two cases.

In February 2019, Jones entered a guilty plea in case No. 19CR61 (Case 4) to one count of possession of methamphetamine. At the plea hearing, Jones acknowledged that the resulting conviction would constitute a probation violation in Cases 2 and 3. At sentencing, the district court imposed the presumptive mid-range sentence of 34 months' imprisonment but granted a dispositional departure to 12 months' probation. In Cases 2 and 3, the court ordered Jones to serve a 180-day jail sanction and reinstated probation for 18 months.

Nine months later, Jones stipulated to violating probation in all three cases by missing appointments with his supervision officer and failing to adhere to his treatment plan. The district court revoked probation in all three cases and ordered Jones to serve the underlying prison sentences as imposed.

Jones now appeals.


Jones raises two issues in this appeal: (1) whether the district court's revocation of his probation was an abuse of discretion; and (2) whether the use of his prior criminal history for purposes of sentencing violated his constitutional right...

To continue reading