Full Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 129,793 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. ROBERT E. CEASAR, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; QUENTIN PITTMAN, 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: Robert E. Ceasar timely appeals the district court's order revoking his probation and imposing his underlying prison sentences. We granted Ceasar's 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 summary disposition. In his motion for summary disposition, Ceasar asserts "that the district court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve the original underlying sentence instead of reinstating probation." Following review, we affirm the district court's ruling. In June 2024, the State charged Ceasar with one count of possession of an opiate (heroin) with the intent to distribute, a severity level 2 nonperson felony; one count of possession of cocaine, a severity level 5 nonperson felony; criminal possession of a 1 weapon by a convicted felon, a severity level 8 nonperson felony; possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute, a severity level 4 nonperson felony; and possession of paraphernalia to distribute or manufacture, a severity level 5 nonperson felony. In October 2024, Ceasar pled guilty to one count of possession of an opiate with the intent to distribute, which had been amended to a severity level 3 nonperson felony, and one count of criminal possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. In exchange, the State dismissed the remaining counts. Both parties agreed to the following: (1) "to recommend the high numbers in the appropriate sentencing guideline grid boxes"; (2) "to recommend the counts run consecutively to each other"; (3) "to recommend the sentence in this case run consecutively to any prior sentences"; and (4) "to recommend that a dispositional departure be granted." The district court granted the parties' sentencing recommendation and sentenced Ceasar to 77 months' imprisonment on the possession of an opiate charge and 9 months' imprisonment on the criminal possession of a weapon by a convicted felon count. The district court suspended the sentences, granted Ceasar's dispositional departure motion, and imposed 36 months' probation. While on probation, Ceasar struggled to remain drug-free. Between February and April 2025, Ceasar violated his probation by submitting multiple urine samples testing positive for methamphetamine and THC. He was also arrested and cited for driving while his license was canceled, suspended, or revoked and for transporting an open container. For these violations, Ceasar waived his right to a hearing and consented to serving two 72-hour jail sanctions. In August 2025, the State filed a motion to revoke Ceasar's probation based on several probation violations. The State alleged that, between June 21, 2025, and August 2 14, 2025, Ceasar "failed to report law enforcement contact within 24 hours"; possessed "a weapon, brass knuckles"; "engaged in assaultive behavior"; tested positive for cocaine; tested positive for marijuana; failed to report to probation twice; "committed the offense of transporting an open container"; and "committed the new offense of criminal possession of a weapon by a convicted felon." At the September 2025 hearing held on the State's motion, Ceasar admitted that he submitted positive drug tests and failed to report twice to probation. He denied the rest of the State's allegations. Based on Ceasar's admissions, the district court found he had violated his probation. Ceasar asked the district court to reinstate probation, arguing that the violations occurred because of drug problems and an inability "to enter the inpatient program . . . due to his insurance." The district court found: "It's clear to me that Mr. Ceasar is not amenable to probation. I realize that this was a drug case to begin with, distribution of heroin, and criminal possession of a weapon, which is why for the better part of six months I worked with Mr. Ceasar as opposed to us having this hearing, but it's clear to me at this point I'm doing nothing but enabling Mr. Ceasar by allowing him to remain out and continue to use narcotics, because that's all he's doing, despite the fact I gave him over six months to show me otherwise." The district court revoked Ceasar's probation and imposed his original prison sentences. Ceasar 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). Ceasar contends that the district court erred when it imposed his underlying prison sentences rather than reinstating probation. He asserts that the district court should have first imposed an intermediate prison sanction before revoking his probation. The State asserts that the district court did not abuse its discretion because Ceasar was granted a downward dispositional departure and, thus, does not need to consider first imposing an intermediate sanction. The State also suggests that Ceasar had completed the sanctions track under K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(1)(C), and the district court was within its discretion to revoke "[u]pon finding a violation of 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." Ceasar admitted he violated his probation and does not dispute that the grant of probation was from a dispositional departure. The district court acted within its sound discretion and statutory authority. See K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(7)(B). Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of Ceasar's probation and the imposition of his underlying prison sentences. Affirmed. 4