Full Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 129,990 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. DEVIN L. PIERCE, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; SEAN M.A. HATFIELD, judge. Submitted without oral argument. Opinion filed October 30, 2026. Affirmed. Submitted by the parties for summary disposition under K.S.A. 21-6820(g) and (h). Before WARNER, C.J., MALONE and HILL, JJ. PER CURIAM: Devin L. Pierce appeals the district court's decision revoking his probation and imposing his original sentence. We granted Pierce's motion for summary disposition of his appeal under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48). The State filed a response, requesting we affirm the district court's ruling. In March 2025, Pierce pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault, criminal damage to property, possession of paraphernalia, and theft. On May 2, 2025, the district court sentenced Pierce to a controlling term of 26 months' imprisonment but granted probation for 12 months. 1 Three months after sentencing, the district court issued a warrant for Pierce for violations of his probation, which included allegations that he had failed a drug screening, failed to report to his intensive supervision officer (ISO), failed to obtain a psychological evaluation, failed to attend drug and alcohol treatment, and failed to pay certain court costs. At the hearing on these allegations, Pierce stipulated to the violations and the district court ordered him to serve a two-day jail sanction. On October 14, 2025, the district court issued another warrant alleging that Pierce committed new crimes including theft and aggravated assault, failed to engage in drug and alcohol treatment as directed, and failed to pay court costs. At the hearing, the State withdrew the allegation that Pierce committed aggravated assault and Pierce stipulated to the remaining claims. The State asked the district court to revoke Pierce's probation and impose his original sentence. The ISO recommended that Pierce serve a 30-day jail sanction followed by inpatient drug and alcohol treatment. Pierce asked the district court to follow the ISO's recommendation and reinstate probation. After considering the parties' arguments, the district court revoked Pierce's probation and ordered him to serve his original sentence. Pierce timely appealed the district court's judgment. On appeal, Pierce claims the district court "abused its discretion when it did not follow his ISO's recommendation and order a 30-day jail sanction to be followed by inpatient treatment because no reasonable person would have taken the view adopted by the district court." The State contends that Pierce has failed to show the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and imposing the original sentence. The procedure for revoking probation is governed by K.S.A. 22-3716. Once a probation violation is established, a district court has discretion to revoke probation and impose the original sentence unless otherwise limited by statute. State v. Tafolla, 315 Kan. 324, 328, 508 P.3d 351 (2022). An appellate court reviews a district court's revocation of probation for an abuse of discretion. 315 Kan. at 328. "A district court 2 abuses its discretion if no reasonable person could agree with its decision or if its exercise of discretion is founded on a factual or legal error." State v. Butler, 315 Kan. 18, Syl. ¶ 1, 503 P.3d 239 (2022). The party asserting the district court abused its discretion bears the burden of showing it. State v. Peters, 319 Kan. 492, 497-98, 555 P.3d 1134 (2024). Pierce makes no claim that the district court's decision to revoke his probation was based on a factual or legal error. He violated his probation resulting in a two-day jail sanction and violated it again by committing new crimes, so the district court was statutorily authorized to revoke the probation. See K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(1)(C) and (c)(7)(C). The only question is whether the district court's judgment was reasonable. Pierce asserts the district court should have sent him to inpatient treatment and it was unreasonable to order him to serve his original sentence instead. But Pierce had the opportunity to participate in inpatient treatment and failed to take advantage of the occasion. Pierce twice violated the conditions of his probation within a few months of being sentenced, and he committed new crimes while on probation. Under these circumstances, Pierce fails to show the district court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and imposing his original sentence. Affirmed. 3