State v. Sisk
| Citation | 286 P.3d 239 |
| Decision Date | 05 October 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 106,987.,106,987. |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Jerome Arthur SISK, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREAppeal from Finney District Court; Philip C. Vieux, Judge.
Submitted for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A.2011 Supp. 21–6820(g) and (h).
Before BUSER, P.J., MALONE and ARNOLD–BURGER, JJ.
Jerome Arthur Sisk appeals the revocation of his probation in case No. 10 CR 634. We granted his motion for summary disposition in lieu of briefs pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041a (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 60). Because we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation, the decision of the district court is affirmed.
In December 2010, Sisk was convicted of one count of distribution of methamphetamine and one count of unlawful acquisition of drug proceeds. The district court sentenced Sisk to 44 months' imprisonment on the first count and 11 months' imprisonment on the second count—for a total of 55 months' imprisonment (as the counts were to be served consecutively). However, the court suspended imprisonment and placed Sisk on probation for a period of 18 months on Count I and 12 months on Count II.
In order to successfully complete probation, Sisk was ordered to comply with various conditions. On April 13, 2011, an intensive supervision officer (ISO) for the State filed an affidavit in the district court claiming Sisk had violated the conditions of his probation by attempting to falsify his urine sample, admitting to cocaine use, failing to show up for a scheduled treatment session, and failing to show up for a scheduled office visit. The ISO moved the court for an order revoking Sisk's probation.
The district court held a hearing regarding the State's allegations. At this hearing, Sisk admitted to the allegations. Sisk's attorney asked the court to allow him to receive inpatient treatment for his serious drug problem in lieu of imprisonment. The district court denied Sisk's request and ordered that he serve his underlying prison sentence.
On appeal, Sisk claims the district court “erred” in revoking probation. Sisk offers no argument as to why the district court “erred” in doing so and only makes this single conclusory claim.
Probation from service of a sentence is an act of grace by the sentencing judge and, unless otherwise required by law, is granted as a privilege, not as a matter of right. State v. Gary, 282 Kan. 232, 237, 144 P.3d 634 (2006). Once the State has proven a violation of the conditions of probation, probation revocation is within the sound discretion of the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hildyard v. Citizens Med. Ctr., Non–Profit Corp.
... ... The CMC bylaws also state: The power of the Board of Trustees to adopt or amend Medical Staff Bylaws ... shall not be dependent upon ratification by the Medical Staff. In no ... ...