Full Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 129,952 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. ANGELIQUE ROBIN DORSEY, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Jackson District Court; NORBERT C. MAREK JR., 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 SCHROEDER, P.J., PICKERING and BOLTON FLEMING, JJ. SCHROEDER, J.: Angelique Robin Dorsey timely appeals the district court's order revoking her probation and imposing her underlying prison sentence. We granted Dorsey's motion for summary disposition in lieu of briefing under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48). The State did not respond to the motion. Dorsey was convicted of possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. The district court sentenced her to 15 months' imprisonment, suspended to 12 months' supervised probation, which did not go well. Dorsey committed a new crime and other probation violations, which she admitted before the district court. Still, she asserts the district court abused its discretion in revoking her probation and ordering her 1 to serve her full underlying prison sentence, arguing a lesser sanction would have been more appropriate. 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). Generally, a district court is required to impose an intermediate sanction before revoking probation. See K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(1)(B), (c)(1)(C). A court may revoke probation without having previously imposed a sanction if the court finds the offender committed a new felony or misdemeanor. K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(7)(C). A judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if (1) it is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; (2) it is based on an error of law; or (3) it is based on an error of fact. State v. Younger, 320 Kan. 98, 137-38, 564 P.3d 744 (2025). Here, Dorsey admitted to multiple violations of the terms of her probation, including the commission of a new crime. Dorsey's multiple violations showed the district court she could not comply with the conditions of her probation. We observe no error of fact or law underlying the district court's decision, nor is the decision objectively unreasonable. The district court acted within its sound discretion and statutory authority. See K.S.A. 22-3716(c)(7)(C). Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of Dorsey's probation and the imposition of her full underlying prison sentence. Affirmed. 2