State v. Travelbee

── State v. Travelbee ── Court: Court of Appeals of Kansas Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 128,114 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JAISON EDWARD TRAVELBEE, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Lyon District Court; W. LEE FOWLER, judge. Submitted without oral argument. Opinion filed June 5, 2026. Affirmed. Randall L. Hodgkinson, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant. Carissa Brinker, assistant county attorney, Amy L. Aranda, county attorney, and Kris W. Kobach, attorney general, for appellee. Before CLINE, P.J., BOLTON FLEMING, J., and JEFFREY GETTLER, District Judge, assigned. PER CURIAM: Jaison Edward Travelbee conveyed threatening messages by phone to an employee of Services Offering Safety (SOS). Travelbee's threats resulted in a lockdown of the facility, which meant that the front doors to the building were locked, and entry to the building was restricted. As a result of his actions, Travelbee was convicted by a jury of aggravated criminal threat and sentenced by the district court to 60 months in prison. 1  On appeal, Travelbee first argues that the district court erred in its culpable mental state instruction to the jury. But we find the instruction was legally appropriate because it defined intentional conduct in accordance with K.S.A. 21-5415(a)(1); K.S.A. 21-5202(h); and PIK Crim. 4th 52.010. Travelbee's second argument on appeal is that his conviction for aggravated criminal threat was not supported by sufficient evidence. He states that his charge of aggravated criminal threat required sufficient evidence of a "lock down," but no lockdown occurred because access to the SOS building was only restricted rather than prohibited. While we agree with Travelbee that the term "lock down" has not been defined under Kansas law in the context of aggravated criminal threat, we find that under the plain meaning of the term, sufficient evidence of a "lock down" may exist when access to a building is restricted. Considering the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, sufficient evidence supported Travelbee's conviction because the building was locked and entry restricted as the result of Travelbee's threats. Finally, Travelbee challenges the district court's failure to provide the jury with a definition of the term "lock down" in the jury instructions. But the district court is not required to define commonly understood terms and the term "lock down" is readily understandable within the context of the aggravated criminal threat statute, K.S.A. 21- 5415(b). Finding no error, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Jaison Travelbee called the SOS office on behalf of his girlfriend, who sought assistance with changing the legal custody of her children, obtaining child support, and addressing stalking issues related to her ex-husband. SOS is an agency that assists victims of domestic violence, human trafficking, sexual assault, and stalking. 2  Cassandra Ortiz, a criminal justice coordinator at SOS, answered Travelbee's call. Ortiz informed Travelbee that SOS could not assist with child custody or child support issues and suggested that he contact Kansas Legal Services. Ortiz also explained that his girlfriend could contact SOS if she needed anything else. According to Ortiz, Travelbee was upset by that response, and stated he "knew who we were, where we were, and they knew how to take care of business and they would take care of business." The SOS worker also recalled that Travelbee stated he would take care of bus