RENDERED: NOVEMBER 9, 2023; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2022-CA-0853-MR

CHARLES NELSON MEDINA APPELLANT 

v. 

APPEAL FROM OWEN CIRCUIT COURT

HONORABLE R. LESLIE KNIGHT, JUDGE

ACTION NO. 21-CR-00028

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE 

OPINION

AFFIRMING

**   **  **

BEFORE: DIXON, GOODWINE, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

DIXON, JUDGE: Charles Medina appeals the order revoking his probation, 

entered by the Owen Circuit Court on May 24, 2022. Following a careful review 

of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 4, 2021, Medina was sentenced to ten years’

imprisonment probated for five years after he pled guilty to being a convicted felon 
-2-

in possession of a handgun, fleeing or evading in the second degree, driving under 

the influence (first offense), and operating a motor vehicle with an expired license. 

Medina’s release was conditional upon his abstaining from alcohol and completing

residential treatment. 

On February 16, 2022, the Commonwealth moved to revoke Medina’s 

probation for violating the terms of his release. At the ensuing hearing on May 24, 

2022, Medina stipulated that he had used alcohol and that he was terminated from 

treatment for twice attempting to conceal restricted property – a cellphone. 

Medina, an admitted alcoholic, testified that he relapsed upon learning that 

“gruesome” charges of felony sexual abuse1 of a family member had been filed

against him. Conceding that the pending charges precluded him from reentering

treatment, Medina nonetheless requested that his probation be reinstated since he 

had not been indicted and the charges could be dismissed. 

Citing Medina’s alcohol addiction, his history of domestic violence,

2

and his penchant for possessing firearms, the court entered an order finding that 

Medina had violated the terms of his release; his failure to comply posed a 

1

 For clarity, the Commonwealth did not seek revocation on the basis of the new charges 

because the alleged events predated Medina’s probation. 

2

 Medina admitted he was prohibited by a domestic violence order from being within 500 feet of 

his family’s residence and that the pending sexual assault charges arose from a domestic 

situation. 
-3-

significant risk to the community; and he could not be managed in the community. 

His probation was revoked, and this appeal followed. Additional facts will be 

introduced as they become relevant. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

KRS3 439.3106(1) states that “[s]upervised individuals shall be 

subject to” the following: 

(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. 

We review a court’s decision revoking probation for an abuse of 

discretion. Commonwealth v. Andrews, 448 S.W.3d 773, 780 (Ky. 2014) (citing 

Commonwealth v. Lopez, 292 S.W.3d 878 (Ky. 2009)). An abuse of discretion 

occurs if the court’s decision was “arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported 

by sound legal principles.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 

941, 945 (Ky. 1999)). 

3

 Kentucky Revised Statutes. 
-4-

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Medina argues that the court abused its discretion by revoking his 

probation without first making necessary findings detailing how his violation of 

supervision constituted a significant risk to the community. Medina further asserts 

that the court’s findings of significant risk and his inability to be managed in the 

community were refuted by the court’s acknowledgment that he could receive 

shock probation and reenter treatment at a later date. We disagree. 

Due process requires that a court make either written or oral findings 

as to “the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation.” 

Commonwealth v. Alleman, 306 S.W.3d 484, 487-88 (Ky. 2010). Additionally, to 

comply with KRS 439.3106(1)(a), a court must specifically find that the 

probationer’s failure to comply with the terms of their supervision constitutes a 

significant risk to prior victims or the community and that they cannot be 

appropriately managed in the community. Andrews, 448 S.W.3d at 780. However, 

contrary to Medina’s assertion otherwise, the court need not detail the basis for 

these findings; rather, all that is necessary is that the findings are supported by the 

record. Kendrick v. Commonwealth, 664 S.W.3d 731, 734-35 (Ky. App. 2023);

New v. Commonwealth, 598 S.W.3d 88, 90-91 (Ky. App. 2019). 

Here, Medina conceded that he could not obtain necessary mental 

health and alcohol addiction treatment, that he had recently relapsed, and that the 
-5-

purported trigger to his relapse was ongoing. Coupled with his unmanaged 

conditions, Medina’s criminal history − driving under the influence, twice illegally 

possessing a firearm, and armed robbery − supported revocation. Additionally, the 

court’s willingness to consider shock probation if Medina ultimately became 

eligible for treatment is consistent with this decision and does not, as Medina 

argues, undermine the court’s findings. Consequently, we find no error. 

Next, Medina contends that the court’s refusal to consider sanctions 

other than revocation necessitates a new hearing. Since neither the plain language 

of KRS 439.3106 nor the cases interpreting it requires a court to consider lesser 

punishments if the statutory prerequisites to revocation have been found, we again 

disagree. See Andrews, 448 S.W.3d at 776-79. Indeed, the Supreme Court has 

expressly held that revocation is within the discretion of the court “provided that 

discretion is exercised consistent with statutory criteria.” Id. at 780. As required 

by KRS 439.3106(1)(a), the court found that Medina posed a significant risk to the 

community and that he could not be managed therein. Accordingly, even absent a 

consideration of lesser sanctions, the court acted within its discretion in revoking 

probation. 

CONCLUSION

Therefore, and for the foregoing reasons, the order of the Owen 

Circuit Court is AFFIRMED. 
-6-

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:

Travis Bewley

Frankfort, Kentucky 

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Daniel Cameron

Attorney General of Kentucky 

Courtney E. Albini

Assistant Solicitor General 

Frankfort, Kentucky