State v. Trout

<p>NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 121,352 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JOSHUA J. TROUT JR., Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; JEFFREY SYRIOS, judge. Opinion filed October 30, 2020. Affirmed. Corrine E. Gunning, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant. Lance J. Gillett, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee. Before GARDNER, P.J., BUSER and BRUNS, JJ. PER CURIAM: In this case, Joshua J. Trout Jr. appeals the district court's refusal to modify his underlying sentence after revoking his probation. On appeal, Trout contends that the district court abused its discretion by requiring him to serve his underlying sentence. Specifically, he argues that the district court should have modified his underlying sentence to allow him to return to the community more quickly to continue working on his sobriety. Based on our review of the record on appeal, we find that the district court's decision not to modify Trout's sentence was reasonable. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion and we affirm its decision. 1 FACTS On March 16, 2017, Trout pleaded guilty in Sedgwick County to aggravated assault as part of a plea agreement. Two months later, the district court sentenced him to a prison term of 29 months. However, the district court granted Trout a downward dispositional departure to 24 months of probation. Just five months later, on November 16, 2017, Trout pleaded no contest to two new assault charges. These new crimes constituted a violation of the terms of Trout's probation. As a result, the district court ordered that he serve a three-day—commonly called a &quot;quick dip&quot;—jail sanction. The district court also extended Trout's probation an additional 12 months. A little over two months later, on January 31, 2018, Trout admitted that he had again violated the terms of his probation. This time he tested positive for methamphetamine. As a result, the district court ordered Trout to serve a 180-day prison sanction and required him to wear a monitoring bracelet. In addition, the district court noted that this was Trout's third chance at probation and warned him against further violations. Notwithstanding this warning, Trout continued to violate the terms of his probation. On February 8, 2019, the State alleged that Trout had committed five additional probation violations. At his probation revocation hearing, the State presented evidence regarding Trout's participation in two vehicle burglaries as well as evidence relating to his submitting a diluted urine sample. After hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, the district court revoked Trout's probation and he does not challenge this decision on appeal. Rather, he only challenges the district court's denial of his request to modify his underlying sentence from 29 months to 24 months. 2 Trout requested that the district court reinstate his probation or, in the alternative, modify his underlying sentence. In doing so, Trout argued that he had completed most of his probation and that he ...</p><br>
<a href="/opinion/4801975/state-v-trout/">Original document</a>
Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on, it is strongly advised to avoid State v. Trout in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from State v. Trout. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
State v. Trout is rated 1 out of 5 based on the reviews submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased reviews.