Full Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 130,179 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. CHARLES N. MILES, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; GRANT BRAZILL, judge. Submitted without oral argument. Opinion filed November 6, 2026. Affirmed. Submitted by the parties for summary disposition under K.S.A. 21-6820(g) and (h). Before SCHROEDER, P.J., PICKERING and BOLTON FLEMING, JJ. PER CURIAM: Charles N. Miles challenges the district court's revocation of his probation and imposition of his underlying prison sentences. We granted Miles' motion for summary disposition of his appeal under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48). The State did not object to Miles' summary disposition. Following review, we affirm the district court's ruling. In March 2022, Wichita police officers observed a Chrysler 200 fail to signal before making a turn and discovered that the vehicle possessed a fictitious temporary tag. While the officers prepared to stop the vehicle, they observed the driver fail to signal a second time. When the officers activated their patrol car's lights and siren, the driver 1 failed to yield to the officers, and a chase ensued. During the chase, the driver committed more traffic infractions, including failing to signal and running three stop signs. While the vehicle was still in motion, the driver fled from the vehicle on foot. The officers stopped the vehicle from striking an occupied residence. The officers pursued and apprehended the driver, identified as Miles. Upon returning to the Chrysler 200, the officers observed marijuana "strewn across the front passenger seat and front passenger floorboard." The officers searched the vehicle and found "plant material believed to be marijuana," "a baggy that contained a crystalline substance believed to be methamphetamine," and a cigarette pack containing another baggy "that contained a crystalline substance believed to be methamphetamine." The officers also searched the vehicle's trunk and found unused needles and two vials "of a liquid labeled as Trenbolone, an anabolic steroid." The State charged Miles with several counts, including possession of methamphetamine, a severity level 5 nonperson felony; fleeing or attempting to elude an officer, a severity level 9 person felony; two counts of possession of controlled substances, a class A misdemeanor; possession of marijuana, a class B nonperson misdemeanor; possession of paraphernalia for use, a class B nonperson misdemeanor; and driving while license is suspended or canceled, a class B nonperson misdemeanor. Miles pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine and fleeing or attempting to elude an officer. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges, recommend the sentences run consecutive to any prior felony convictions, and recommend a durational departure to 20 months' imprisonment. The parties also agreed that Miles could "argue for any lawful alternative sentence, which the State [would] oppose." 2 In June 2025, the district court held a sentencing hearing, where Miles asked the district court for a downward dispositional departure to probation. The district court advised Miles that it would either order a durational departure of 20 months' imprisonment or a downward dispositional departure to probation with an underlying prison sentence of 37 months. Miles asked the district court to grant his downward dispositional departure. The district court granted Miles' departure motion and sentenced Miles to an underlying sentence of 37 months with a probation term of 12 months. Miles struggled while serving his probation term. In September 2025, Miles admitted using methamphetamine on three separate occasions, waived his right to a hearing, and consented to serving a 48-hour jail sanction. The State later alleged Miles committed 15 probation violations. In January 2026, the district court held a revocation hearing based on these violations. Miles again waived his right to an evidentiary hearing and admitted the violations "to the extent that they're consistent with the report regarding the Kingman County cases." The violations included three failures to report to his probation officer; failure to notify his probation officer of his employment termination; and committing new crimes, including criminal damage to property, criminal trespass, theft of property or services, burglary, and interference with the custody of a child. The State asked the district court to revoke Miles' probation in light of these violations. In response, Miles asked the district court to "reinstate his probation and assign him to the adult residential program," or, if the district court did revoke, to modify the sentence to 18 months' imprisonment. The district court revoked Miles' probation and imposed his underlying prison sentences, finding that Miles violated his probation when he committed new crimes and his original sentence resulted from a dispositional departure. Miles now appeals. 3 Once a probation violation is established, a district court has discretion to revoke probation and impose the original sentence unless the court is otherwise limited by statute. State v. Tafolla, 315 Kan. 324, 328, 508 P.3d 351(2022). Miles asserts that the district court "erred in revoking his probation and in imposing the underlying prison sentence." The State contends that the district court did not abuse its discretion because Miles violated his probation and the district court "was well within its discretion" to revoke upon a finding of a violation. Miles' inability to remain crime-free during his probation term, along with his technical violations, demonstrated that he could not comply with the conditions of his probation. Under K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(7)(B), the district court may revoke probation and impose the underlying sentence without previously imposing a sanction if "probation . . . was originally granted as the result of a dispositional departure." In addition to serving a 48-hour sanction before being returned to probation, Miles was granted a downward dispositional departure to probation, and Miles admitted to several probation violations. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Tafolla, 315 Kan. at 331. Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of Miles' probation and the imposition of his underlying prison sentences. Affirmed. 4