State v. Corwin

• Court: Court of Appeals of Kansas
• Decided: April 24, 2020
• Docket: 121817
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 121,817

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,

v.

BRENT A. CORWIN, Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Mitchell District Court; KIM W. CUDNEY, judge. Opinion filed April 24, 2020. Affirmed.

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

Before ARNOLD-BURGER, C.J., LEBEN, J., and MCANANY, S.J.

PER CURIAM: While he was on probation for possessing stolen property, the State alleged that Brent Corwin committed more than two dozen new crimes across four Kansas counties. At a hearing on those allegations, the district court found that Corwin had committed the new offenses; based on that, the court revoked his probation. See K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3716(c)(7)(C) (giving the district court the discretion to revoke probation if the defendant commits a new felony or misdemeanor while on probation).

Corwin has appealed the district court's decision to this court. On appeal, he does not challenge the district court's finding that he had committed new crimes. Instead, he just states that "the district court erred in revoking his probation and in imposing the underlying prison sentence." Corwin doesn't explain how the court erred. Nor does he contend that the district court lacked the discretion to revoke his probation. So whether to revoke his probation was a discretionary call for the district court. And unless the district court has made a legal or factual error, we will set aside its discretionary decision only if no reasonable person could agree with the court's decision. State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 550, 256 P.3d 801 (2011). Corwin repeatedly committed burglary, theft, and criminal property damage while he was already on probation for possessing stolen property. Based on that, a reasonable person could agree with the district court that Corwin wasn't a good candidate to continue on probation.

On Corwin's motion, we accepted this appeal for summary disposition under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6820(g) and (h) and Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 47). We have reviewed the record available to the sentencing court, and we find no error in its decision to revoke Corwin's probation.

We therefore affirm the district court's judgment.