State v. Hall

• Court: Court of Appeals of Kansas
• Decided: April 17, 2026
• Docket: 129120
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 129,120

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,

v.

TRENTON EDWARD HALL, Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Haskell District Court; CLINT PETERSON, judge. Submitted without oral argument. Opinion filed April 17, 2026. Affirmed.

Submitted by the parties for summary disposition under K.S.A. 21-6820(g) and (h).

Before WARNER, C.J., ATCHESON and CLINE, JJ.

CLINE, J.: The district court revoked Trenton Edward Hall's probation and imposed his underlying sentence after an evidentiary hearing where it found he violated the terms of his probation by using and possessing methamphetamine.

Hall filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48), which we granted. We review a district court's revocation of probation for an abuse of discretion. State v. Tafolla, 315 Kan. 324, 328, 508 P.3d 351 (2022). A district court abuses its discretion when its action is based on an error of law or fact or is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. State v. Bilbrey, 317 Kan. 57, 63, 523 P.3d 1078 (2023). The party asserting the district court abused its

1 discretion bears the burden of demonstrating that abuse. State v. Peters, 319 Kan. 492, 497-98, 555 P.3d 1134 (2024).

Hall provides no reason why he believes the district court erred in revoking his probation and, after reviewing the record, we see none. The district court found Hall violated his probation by using methamphetamine. Because Hall was granted probation through a dispositional departure, the court had statutory authority to revoke his probation under K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(7)(B). And although the district court was not required to make particularized findings when revoking Hall's probation under K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(7)(B), it did so by pointing out how Hall's probation had already been previously extended and this was Hall's second time before the court with allegations of violating his probation. See Tafolla, 315 Kan. at 331.

Because we do not find the district court's decision was based on a legal or factual error, nor was it unreasonable under the circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.