Full Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 129,851 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JASON MICHAEL FOSTER, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Shawnee District Court; JESSICA HEINEN, judge. Submitted without oral argument. Opinion filed October 23, 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. HILL, J.: Jason Foster appeals the revocation of his probation and imposition of his sentence. We granted his motion for summary disposition of his appeal under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48). Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. Charged with three counts of violating the Offender Registration Act, Foster pled guilty to one and the other two were dismissed. This offense was committed in September 2022. In October 2023, the district court sentenced Foster to 88 months in prison. But the court granted a dispositional departure to a 36-month probation term based on three facts: that there was an agreement between the parties; that Foster had already started treatment; and that he had accepted responsibility for his crime. The court 1 ordered Foster to complete a drug and alcohol evaluation, continue treatment, and register as required. In December 2024, the State filed a motion to revoke Foster's probation alleging that Foster failed to remain law abiding, failed to remain drug and alcohol free, and failed to report. The court found that Foster violated his probation by failing to report and failing to remain free of drugs and alcohol. The court ordered him to serve a three-day jail sanction. In June 2025, the State again moved to revoke Foster's probation alleging that Foster failed to remain law abiding, failed to comply with the call-in urinalysis program, and failed to remain drug and alcohol free. The court found Foster failed to comply with the call-in system and failed to remain drug and alcohol free. The court revoked his probation. When Foster asked for a sentence reduction from 88 months to 44 months, the court ordered him to serve his original 88-month sentence. Because it had already given Foster many chances to rehabilitate himself on probation, it did not believe Foster would follow the probation conditions. Also, it found no reduction in sentence was warranted because he had already been given a jail sanction and his underlying conviction was possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, a serious drug crime. To us, Foster argues that no reasonable person would have denied his request for a lesser sentence because he did not present a risk to society, his crimes were nonviolent, and a shorter sentence would have benefited his rehabilitation and recovery. The law that guides us is well settled. 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 2 351 (2022); see K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(1) (requiring graduated sanctions before revocation in certain circumstances). The district court may revoke an offender's probation after the offender has received at least one two- or three-day jail sanction. K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(1)(C). The district court may revoke probation without having previously imposed a sanction if the offender received probation as the result of a dispositional departure. K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(7)(B). After revoking the offender's probation, the court may order the offender to serve the original sentence imposed or any lesser sentence. K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(1)(C). Appellate courts apply an abuse of discretion standard of review on appeal from the district court's decision to deny a motion for sentence modification under K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(1)(C). See State v. Ralston, 63 Kan. App. 2d 447, 455, 529 P.3d 1275 (2023) (referencing prior version of this subsection, K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716[c][1][E]). In our view, the district court here did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant Foster a reduced sentence. Foster was granted probation as the result of a dispositional departure. He was granted a three-day jail sanction in lieu of revocation after his first probation violation. Throughout, he continued to use drugs and alcohol. It cannot be said that no reasonable person would have denied the sentence modification. The court's decision was lawful, factually accurate, and reasonable. Affirmed. 3