RENDERED: OCTOBER 4, 2024; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2023-CA-0588-MR

KENDALL PAUL SCOTT APPELLANT 

v. 

APPEAL FROM BUTLER CIRCUIT COURT

HONORABLE TIMOTHY R. COLEMAN, JUDGE

ACTION NO. 21-CR-00026

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE 

OPINION

AFFIRMING

**   **  **

BEFORE: ACREE, KAREM, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

KAREM, JUDGE: Kendall Paul Scott (“Scott”) appeals from the Butler Circuit 

Court’s judgment revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his five (5)-

year sentence of imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 26, 2023, the Butler County Grand Jury indicted Scott with 

one (1) count of manslaughter in the second degree, four (4) counts of trafficking 
-2-

in a controlled substance in the first degree, and one (1) count of being a persistent 

felony offender in the first degree. The manslaughter charge stemmed from the 

death of Jesse Todd Bowling, who overdosed on fentanyl allegedly sold to him by 

Scott in October 2020. The Commonwealth claimed that Scott’s sale of the 

fentanyl to Bowling was the proximate cause of Bowling’s death. The indictment 

further claimed that Scott sold fentanyl to a confidential informant on other 

occasions throughout October 2020. 

Scott entered an Alford1 Plea to the amended charge of Trafficking in 

a Controlled Substance – Drug Unspecified, 1st offense. In its final judgment and 

sentencing order entered on July 22, 2022, the Butler Circuit Court followed the 

Commonwealth’s recommendation and sentenced Scott to five (5) years’ 

imprisonment, probated for five (5) years. The circuit court entered an order of 

probation on July 22, 2022, subjecting Scott to certain conditions, including not 

committing a new offense while on probation.

2

 

On August 25, 2022, the Commonwealth filed a motion to revoke 

probation based on Scott’s admission to using marijuana. Attached to the motion 

was a violation of the supervision report. In response to Scott’s admission, his 

1 North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970).

2 Scott was already on probation for two (2) other sentences in Warrant County from 2020, 

including burglary in the second degree and fourth-degree assault. 
-3-

probation officer, Officer Amber Jones, recommended a sanction requiring Scott to 

complete a marijuana education packet. 

On September 29, 2022, the Commonwealth filed a supplemental 

motion to revoke probation. The Commonwealth contended that Scott had further 

violated his probation when he was arrested on September 1, 2022, and charged 

with two (2) new offenses in Warren Circuit Court: (1) promoting contraband in 

the first degree and (2) being a persistent felony offender in the first degree. The 

Commonwealth attached a violation of supervision report dated September 8, 

2022, which included the following narrative from the Warren County Regional 

Jail’s (“WCRJ”) citation:

On 9/1/22 at approximately 1350 hours, Inmate Kendall 

Scott was brought to booking from the court door where 

he was taken into custody in a courtroom by Warren 

County Sheriff’s Office Court Security. Inmate Scott 

was seated in booking and was extremely fidgety while 

deputies were preparing for a pat down and a strip search. 

Scott entered the prisoner dressing room with half of his 

body as deputies stopped him and advised him that he 

needed to be patted down prior to entering the prisoner 

dressing room for a strip search. Scott exited the room 

and then a pat down was performed. As soon as Sgt. 

Joseph Blair opened the prisoner dressing room to follow 

Scott into the room, a gray corner baggie of contraband 

was located. Sgt. Blair retrieved the ba[g] and exited 

booking to examine the contraband. Another deputy 

completed the strip search with Scott and he was secured 

in a cell. Sgt. Joseph Blair and Captain Jeff Bryant 

performed a presumptive field test on the contraband 

with a MX908 device. The test yielded two positive 

alarms one for methamphetamine and one for fentanyl. 
-4-

The Evidence had a total package weight of 4.1 grams 

and appeared to be gray and white powdery substance. 

The evidence was packaged and secured in the evidence 

room for submission to the Kentucky State Police 

Laboratory. Upon review of the security Camera 

footage, you can see Scott remove an item with his right 

hand from his right pants pocket. He holds the item in 

his closed fist until he enters the dressing room the first 

time before staff had him exit for the pat down. When 

the pat down is completed and staff enter the dressing 

room after the pat down, this is when Sgt. Blair recovers 

the gray corner baggie of contraband. Inmate Scott 

intentionally introduced contraband into the Warren 

County Regional Jail.

 

Thereafter, at the revocation hearing in April 2023, the 

Commonwealth called Officer Jones as a witness. Specifically, the 

Commonwealth wanted to discuss the pending Warren County charges from 

September and asked Officer Jones to read the WCRJ’s citation. 

When Officer Jones began reading the citation, defense counsel 

objected, arguing that Officer Jones did not “have firsthand knowledge of the facts 

alleged [and] simply reading from a citation isn’t sufficient.” The circuit court 

overruled the objection, and Officer Jones read the complete citation. The 

Commonwealth concluded direct examination by asking Officer Jones if she was 

requesting revocation, and she said yes. The Commonwealth further asked if Scott 

could be actively supervised in the community or amenable to treatment, and 

Officer Jones responded in the negative. 
-5-

On cross-examination, Officer Jones admitted she had not watched the 

relevant video or spoken to any of the officers involved in the new charges. She

further admitted that she did not have any firsthand knowledge and only knew 

what was in the citation. Officer Jones further testified that she was not Scott’s 

probation officer at the time of the revocation hearing, but she was the officer 

when the events surrounding the citation occurred. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court ruled that it was 

revoking Scott’s probation and stated its concerns as Scott having a new felony 

charge and having used marijuana, which was strictly against probation and 

parole’s rules and regulations. Additionally, the circuit court entered an order 

revoking probation on April 10, 2023. The specific findings were as follows:

2. The Court FINDS that Defendant, when the defendant 

used a controlled substance – marijuana and was arrested 

and charged with new offenses of law; 1. Promoting 

Contraband First Degree and 2. Persistent Felony 

Offender in the First Degree in Warren Circuit Court; 

Action No. 22-CR-141.

3. Based on these violations, the Court FINDS that 

defendant cannot be effectively managed/supervised in 

the community and constitutes a significant risk to the 

community. The Court FURTHER FINDS, based on 

these violations, that Defendant is not amenable to 

additional graduated sanctions and/or treatment at this 

time.

This appeal followed.

We will discuss further facts as they become relevant. 
-6-

ANALYSIS

1. Standard of Review 

We review probation revocation proceedings for an abuse of 

discretion. Blankenship v. Commonwealth, 494 S.W.3d 506, 508 (Ky. App. 2015)

(citation omitted). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is “arbitrary, 

unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Commonwealth v. 

English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999) (citations omitted). 

2. Discussion

Scott first contends that the circuit court should not have permitted 

Officer Jones to read the WCRJ’s citation concerning Scott’s new charges, and that 

his ability to effectively cross-examine was hindered thereby.

As the Kentucky Court of Appeals stated, 

[i]t is clear in this Commonwealth that probation is a 

privilege rather than a right. One may retain his status as 

a probationer only as long as the trial court is satisfied 

that he has not violated the terms or conditions of the 

probation. It is not necessary that the Commonwealth 

obtain a conviction in order to accomplish revocation of 

probation. 

Tiryung v. Commonwealth, 717 S.W.2d 503, 504 (Ky. App. 1986) (citations

omitted). A court may revoke probation if a preponderance of the evidence 

establishes a violation. Rasdon v. Commonwealth, 701 S.W.2d 716, 719 (Ky. App. 

1986). 
-7-

Moreover, “[a] probation revocation proceeding is not a part of a 

criminal prosecution; the proceeding is less formal and requires less proof than a 

criminal trial.” Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 476 S.W.3d 260, 263 (Ky. App. 2015) 

(citation omitted). Additionally, “the Kentucky Rules of Evidence do not apply in 

such proceedings[,] and hearsay is admissible.” Id.

In this case, Scott was afforded the requisite due process. Indeed, 

“[r]eliable hearsay testimony is permissible at probation revocation proceedings 

and a finding of a witness’s unavailability is not required.” Id. (citations omitted). 

Moreover, “there is no absolute right to confront witnesses [at a revocation 

hearing], especially when the reliability of the witnesses . . . can be easily 

ascertained.” Marshall v. Commonwealth, 638 S.W.2d 288, 289 (Ky. App. 1982).

In addition, “there is no independent investigation requirement for 

supervised release revocation cases on the part of probation officers and a witness 

need not have firsthand knowledge of the underlying facts in order to testify 

competently at a revocation hearing.” Sullivan, supra, at 264 (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted). Instead, “the thoroughness of the testifying witness’s 

own investigation or the extent of his personal knowledge are simply factors to be 

weighed by the [trial] judge.” Id. (citations omitted).

Here, Officer Jones, a sworn witness and Scott’s probation officer at 

the time of the applicable events, testified to the claimed violations based upon the 
-8-

WCRJ’s citation and the violation report. The violation report upon which Officer 

Jones based her testimony contained a detailed account of the underlying events, 

including the date, time, and place at which Scott was alleged to have introduced 

contraband into the detention center. Officer Jones’s testimony was within the 

scope of her employment as a trained probation officer, and Scott has pointed to no 

evidence demonstrating that her testimony was unreliable or not credible. 

Moreover, Scott was given the opportunity to cross-examine Officer Jones, which 

he did. 

Under these facts, Scott’s assertion that the allowance of Officer 

Jones’s testimony violated his right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses 

against him is not well-taken. Officer Jones’s testimony and the documentary 

evidence upon which she relied are credible evidence sufficient to support the 

circuit court’s finding that Scott had violated his probation by committing a new 

offense. Instead, although the jailer’s “live testimony may have been preferable, 

his absence does not render the revocation proceeding unconstitutional.” Sullivan, 

supra, at 264 (citation omitted). 

Scott next argues that the circuit court failed to provide adequate 

findings under Kentucky Revised Statute (“KRS”) 439.3106, which provides in 

applicable part that: 

(1) Supervised individuals shall be subject to:
-9-

(a) Violation revocation proceedings and possible 

incarceration for failure to comply with the conditions 

of supervision when such failure constitutes a 

significant risk to prior victims of the supervised 

individual or the community at large, and cannot be 

appropriately managed in the community; or 

(b)Sanctions other than revocation and incarceration as 

appropriate to the severity of the violation behavior, 

the risk of future criminal behavior by the offender, 

and the need for, and availability of, interventions 

which may assist the offender to remain compliant 

and crime-free in the community. 

In summary:

KRS 439.3106(1) requires trial courts to consider 

whether a probationer’s failure to abide by a condition of 

supervision constitutes a significant risk to prior victims 

or the community at large, and whether the probationer 

cannot be managed in the community before probation 

may be revoked.

Commonwealth v. Andrews, 448 S.W.3d 773, 780 (Ky. 2014). A panel of this 

Court has stated that “[n]either KRS 439.3106 nor Andrews require anything more 

than [the foregoing findings] supported by the evidence of record.” McClure v. 

Commonwealth, 457 S.W.3d 728, 733 (Ky. App. 2015).

In this case, the record contradicts Scott’s argument that the circuit

court failed to enter a sufficient finding that he posed a significant risk to the 

community that could not be appropriately managed. On the written order 

revoking Scott’s probation, the circuit court found that Scott had been charged with 

promoting contraband in the first degree. The record indicates that the 
-10-

“contraband” Scott was accused of bringing into the facility was fentanyl, which 

was the drug he had initially been charged with selling to Bowling and which had 

allegedly led to Bowling’s overdose and death. Thus, the circuit court’s finding 

that Scott posed a significant risk to the community, which could not be 

appropriately managed, was supported by the record. 

In addition, the circuit court’s statements at the conclusion of the 

hearing further demonstrated that the court considered the gravity of Scott’s

actions. Specifically, the circuit court was very concerned about Scott’s new 

indictment and his marijuana use. 

The circuit court further found – and the evidence demonstrated – that 

Scott could not be adequately managed in the community. Within months of being 

placed on probation, he was driving on a revoked license and failed to report his 

contacts with law enforcement. In addition to his charges in Warren County, he 

admitted to using marijuana on one occasion and had a positive drug test on 

another. Thus, the circuit court’s conclusions that Scott was a significant danger to 

the community and could not be managed in the community were supported by the 

record in this case, and the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in revoking 

Scott’s probation.

Finally, Scott argues that the circuit court failed to consider alternative 

graduated sanctions less than revocation. However, the statutory language of KRS 
-11-

439.3106 does not require the circuit court to “consider revocation only as a last 

resort.” Hall v. Commonwealth, 566 S.W.3d 578, 581 (Ky. App. 2018). Indeed, 

“KRS 439.3106 permits, but does not require, a trial court to employ lesser 

sanctions . . . [n]othing in the statute or in the Supreme Court’s interpretation of it 

requires the trial court to impose lesser sanctions prior to revoking probation.” 

McClure, 457 S.W.3d at 732. The circuit court examined Scott’s behavior and 

appropriately decided to revoke his probation. There was no abuse of discretion.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Butler Circuit Court’s order 

revoking Scott’s probation.

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:

Kayley Barnes

Frankfort, Kentucky

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Russell Coleman

Attorney General of Kentucky

Ken W. Riggs

Assistant Attorney General

Frankfort, Kentucky