RENDERED: NOVEMBER 9 , 2023; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 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 wit h an expired license.
Medina’s rel ease was condition al up on hi s abstain ing from alcohol and comple ting
residential treatment.

On February 16, 2022, the Commonwealth moved to revoke Medina’s probation for violating the terms of his release

. A t the ensu ing hearing on May 24, 2022, Medina stipulated that he had used alcohol and th at he was terminated from
treatment for twice attempting to conceal restricted property

– a cellphone

. Medina , an admitted alcoholic, testified that h e relapse d upon learning that “gruesome” charges of felony sexual abuse 1 of a family member had been filed against him . C onced ing 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 , h is history of domestic violence , 2
and his penchant for possess ing firearms, t he 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 famil y’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 His probation was revoked, and this appeal followed.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
KRS 3 439.3106 (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 app ropriately 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, interven tions which may assist the offender to remain compli a nt 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

t h at the court’s finding s of significant risk and his inability to be managed in the community were refuted by the court’s acknowledgment that he could receive
shock probat ion and reenter treatment at a later date

. We disagree

.

D ue 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 , 30 6 S.W.3d 484, 487

- 88 (Ky. 2010) . Additionally, to comply with KRS 439.3106(1)(a), a co urt 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,

c ontrary to Medina’s assertion otherwise, the court need not detail the basis for
the se 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. 20 23);
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 ongo ing. Coupled with his unmanaged conditions, Medina ’s criminal history

− driving under the influence , twice illegally possessing a firearm, and armed robbery

− support ed revo cation. Additionally, the
court’ s w illingness 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 consi der sanctions other than revocation necessitates a new hearing. Since n either the plain language of KRS 439.3106 nor the cases interpreting it require s 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. A s required
b y KRS 439.3106(1) (a), t he 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 for e going reasons, the order of the Owen
Circuit Court is AFFIRMED

.- 6

- ALL CONCUR

.

BRIEF S FOR APPELLANT: Travis Bewley Frankfort, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Daniel Cameron Attorney General of Kentucky Courtney E. Albini Assistant Solicitor General Frankfort, Kentucky