Full Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 130,009 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER SHAWN LARSEN, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Riley District Court; KENDRA S. LEWISON, 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 SCHROEDER, P.J., GARDNER and CLINE, JJ. SCHROEDER, J.: It is never wise to commit new crimes while serving a term of probation for a previous conviction. Christopher Shawn Larsen timely appeals the district court's revocation of his probation. We granted his motion for summary disposition under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48). The State did not respond. Finding the district court correctly applied the law and did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. Larsen pled guilty to one count of aggravated domestic battery for acts committed against J.B. in March 2024. The district court convicted Larsen and sentenced him to an underlying prison term of 12 months with 12 months' postrelease supervision, suspended to 24 months' supervised probation. 1 Probation did not go well. At the probation revocation hearing, the State presented evidence showing Larsen violated the terms of his probation by committing several new crimes, including violations of a protective order of a different victim, S.R.; burglary; and criminal trespass. The district court held a combined preliminary hearing on the new criminal allegations and the probation violation. The district court found Larsen violated the terms of his probation by committing new crimes, revoked Larsen's probation, and ordered him to serve his underlying prison sentence. Larsen claims the district court abused its discretion in revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his underlying prison sentence instead of reinstating his probation. Once the district court determines the defendant violated the terms of probation, the decision to revoke probation lies in the discretion of the district court, subject to statutory limitations. State v. Tafolla, 315 Kan. 324, 328, 508 P.3d 351 (2022). A district court abuses its discretion if its decision is based on an error of fact or law or is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. State v. Levy, 313 Kan. 232, 237, 485 P.3d 605 (2021). Larsen bears the burden to establish such abuse of discretion. See State v. Crosby, 312 Kan. 630, 635, 479 P.3d 167 (2021). The district court made no error of law or fact. The State had the burden to establish the probation violations by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Gumfory, 281 Kan. 1168, 1170, 135 P.3d 1191 (2006). And the evidence presented at Larsen's combined preliminary hearing and probation revocation hearing met that burden. S.R., who at one time was in a relationship with Larsen, testified she got a protection from stalking order against Larsen on August 13, 2025. The following few days, S.R. received various messages, phone calls, and social media reactions from Larsen. S.R. also testified Larsen showed up at her work, which was corroborated by S.R.'s coworker and a law enforcement officer. While the protection from stalking order was still in effect, S.R. 2 went to the mall and Larsen showed up behind her in the same store where she was. Larsen also showed up at S.R.'s neighbor's house. The State presented additional evidence showing Larsen entered S.R.'s home without her permission while she was not there. The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence Larsen violated the terms of his probation by violating a protection from stalking order and committing burglary and criminal trespass. The district court was within its statutory authority and sound discretion in revoking Larsen's probation and imposing his underlying prison sentence under K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(7)(C). Affirmed. 3