Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Otano

Court of Appeals of Kansas

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 129065

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 129,065

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY J. OTANO,
Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; CHRISTOPHER MAGANA, judge. Submitted without oral
argument. Opinion filed March 27, 2026. Affirmed.

Submitted by the parties for summary disposition under K.S.A. 21-6820(g) and (h).

Before GARDNER, P.J., ARNOLD-BURGER and SCHROEDER, JJ.

PER CURIAM: Anthony J. Otano appeals the district court's revocation of his
probation and imposition of his original sentence. We granted Otano's motion for
summary disposition under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at
48). In response, the State does not object to summary disposition. After careful review,
we affirm the district court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In August 2022, Otano pleaded guilty to unlawful request for emergency services,
a level seven nonperson felony, contrary to K.S.A. 21-6207(a), (b)(3). In September, the

1
district court sentenced Otano to the presumptive sentence of 24 months' probation with
an underlying sentence of 27 months' imprisonment.

Otano quickly struggled to follow the conditions of his probation. Four months
later, in January 2023, the district court ordered Otano to serve a 3-day jail sanction for
marijuana use as evidenced by positive urinalysis results on two days (in October and
November 2022) and for failing to follow the recommendations of his mental health
evaluation—all three of which were probation violations. In addition to the jail sanction,
the district court took Otano off electronic monitoring, placed him into community
corrections supervision, and extended his probation 24 months.

In July 2024, the district court ordered Otano to serve another 3-day jail sanction
due to new criminal charges of driving under the influence and no proof of insurance and
extended his probation for another 24 months.

In December 2024, the district court ordered Otano to serve a 60-day jail sanction
for failure to maintain fulltime employment, which was a probation violation. After
release from that jail sanction, the district court ordered that Otano be released to a
residential treatment center to help with his addiction and that he start outpatient
treatment. The district court again extended his probation for 24 months.

In February 2025, the State alleged that Otano had violated the terms of his
probation a fourth time—this time for failing to abide by the rules of the residential
treatment center. In March 2025, the district court held a hearing at which Otano
stipulated to the violation.

Otano requested reinstatement of his probation, noting that he had taken
accountability for the violation, had self-reported it, and that his intensive supervised
probation officer had recommended reinstatement of his probation. Otano's counsel

2
added that probation should be reinstated because Otano had been largely compliant with
his supervision, emphasizing that he had completed his house arrest, evaluations,
treatment, and community service, and had paid all his fees and fines.

The district court judge found that Otano's probation could have been revoked
previously after he committed new crimes and that Otano would be in a much stronger
position to argue for reimposition of probation if this were not his fourth probation
violation:

"I've been more—more than fair with Mr. Otano. This is nowhere close to the jumping
the gun on Mr. Otano. But on a fourth [probation violation], I think at this point, we're
out of patience, and as far as I'm concerned, we're out of attempts to keep putting the
resources towards Mr. Otano."

The district court then revoked Otano's probation and ordered him to serve his original
sentence, denying his request for a modified prison sentence.

Otano timely appeals, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by
revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his full sentence.

DID THE DISTRICT COURT ERR BY REVOKING OTANO'S PROBATION?

Once a probation violation has been established, the district court's decision to
revoke or modify the offender's probation and impose the original sentence is
discretionary unless otherwise limited by statute. See State v. Dooley, 308 Kan. 641, 647,
423 P.3d 469 (2018). We review the propriety of the district court's revocation of
probation for an abuse of discretion. State v. Tafolla, 315 Kan. 324, 328, 508 P.3d 351
(2022). A court abuses its discretion if the judicial decision (1) is arbitrary, fanciful, or
unreasonable; (2) is based on an error of law; or (3) is based on an error of fact. 315 Kan.

3
at 328. Otano bears the burden of establishing such abuse of discretion. See 315 Kan. at
328. Otano tacitly asserts that the district court's decision was unreasonable.

A district court must apply the probation revocation structure in effect on the date
the probationer committed the crime of conviction. State v. Dominguez, 58 Kan. App. 2d
630, 637, 473 P.3d 932 (2020). Otano committed his offense in July of 2021, so K.S.A.
2021 Supp. 22-3716 provides the controlling probation revocation rules.

Generally, before a district may revoke an offender's probation, it must have
imposed intermediate sanctions upon the offender. See K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-
3716(c)(1)(B), (c)(1)(C). Although inapplicable to this case, under certain exceptions the
district court may bypass intermediate sanctions and immediately revoke probation. See
K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3716(c)(7).

Otano asserts that the district court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve
his full prison sentence rather than reinstating his probation after his fourth probation
violation and, alternatively, not modifying his prison sentence. But the district court had
the legal authority to revoke Otano's probation because he had previously served the
required intermediate sanctions. See K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3716(c)(1)(C). Otano points
out no legal or factual error.

Otano thus bears the burden to show that "no reasonable person would have taken
the court's position." State v. Dunham, 58 Kan. App. 2d 519, 529, 472 P.3d 604 (2020).
He fails to do so. Although Otano complied with parts of his probation requirements, he
struggled for years to follow all the rules of probation. Given his pattern of repeated
violations of the terms of his probation, and the ineffectiveness of prior intermediate
sanctions and probation modifications, Otano makes no persuasive argument that he
would be compliant after his fourth violation.

4
Otano thus fails to show how the district court's refusal to modify the term of his
original prison sentence was unreasonable. Our review of the record reveals no abuse of
discretion by the district court in revoking Otano's probation and reinstating his original
sentence.

Affirmed.

5