RENDERED: MAY 19, 2023; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2021-CA-1483-MR

CRAIG HOLLON APPELLANT 

v. 

APPEAL FROM BREATHITT CIRCUIT COURT

HONORABLE LISA HAYDEN WHISMAN, JUDGE

ACTION NO. 13-CR-00005

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE 

OPINION

AFFIRMING

**   **  **

BEFORE: CALDWELL, GOODWINE, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

GOODWINE, JUDGE: Craig Hollon (“Hollon”) appeals the November 22, 2021,

order of the Breathitt Circuit Court revoking his probation and imposing a sentence 

of eight years’ imprisonment. We affirm.

A Breathitt County grand jury indicted Hollon on several charges on 

March 29, 2013. On July 15, 2014, he entered a plea agreement and was sentenced 

to eight years in prison, probated for five years. 
-2-

A violation of supervision report was filed on February 7, 2018,

requesting revocation of Hollon’s probation because he violated the conditions of 

his probation on January 25, 2018. The circuit court conducted a revocation 

hearing on March 23, 2018, and found Hollon violated the terms of his probation 

but declined to revoke it.

A second violation of the supervision report was filed on April 30, 

2018, requesting the imposition of an alternative sentence of sixty days’ jail time

because Hollon again violated the conditions of his probation on April 20, 2018. 

At the revocation hearing on May 25, 2018, the circuit court found Hollon violated 

the terms of supervision and sentenced him to serve sixty days’ jail time and to

“remain on probation as previously ordered.”

A third violation of supervision report was filed on May 15, 2019, 

recommending revocation of probation because Hollon violated the terms of his 

probation on February 8, 2019. At the revocation hearing on September 20, 2019, 

Hollon agreed to extend his probation for five years to avoid revocation. Both 

Hollon and his counsel, having seen and agreed to the terms of the extension,

signed the order. 

On October 5, 2021, the Commonwealth filed a motion to revoke 

Hollon’s probation. A hearing was conducted on November 19, 2021. Hollon 

argued, as a matter of law, that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enter the 
-3-

order extending his probation on September 20, 2019, because his probationary 

period expired on July 11, 2019 – five years after sentencing.1 The circuit judge 

entered an order revoking his parole and imposing the eight-year sentence on 

November 22, 2021. This appeal followed.

We review matters of statutory interpretation de novo. Whitcomb v. 

Commonwealth, 424 S.W.3d 417, 419 (Ky. 2014) (citation omitted).

On appeal, Hollon argues: (1) even with the tolling of the 

probationary period, his probation expired on September 15, 2019; (2) as a result, 

the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order extending his probation on 

September 20, 2019; and (3) in the alternative, he did not knowingly and 

voluntarily agree to the extension of his probation.

First, Hollon acknowledges that his original probationary period has 

been tolled due to violations of the terms of his supervision. At issue is applying

the tolling provisions in KRS 533.040(2). “If a court, as authorized by law, 

determines that a defendant violated the conditions of his probation . . . but 

reinstates probation . . . , the period between the date of the violation and the date 

of the restoration of probation . . . shall not be computed as part of the period of 

1 The parties disagree about the date of sentencing and, as a result, the date of expiration of 

Hollon’s probationary period. Hollon uses the date the circuit judge signed the sentencing order, 

July 11, 2014. The Commonwealth uses the date of entry of the order, July 15, 2014. Use of the 

date of entry of the order is appropriate. 
-4-

probation[.]” Id. Hollon reasons his probationary period must be tolled for sixtysix days because of two violations, meaning his probation expired on September 

15, 2019. 

Hollon erroneously alleges that tolling begins when a violation of 

supervision report is filed. Instead, tolling runs from the date of the violation itself. 

Commonwealth v. Dulin, 427 S.W.3d 170, 175 (Ky. 2014) (citing KRS 

533.040(2)). Hollon first violated the conditions of his supervision on January 26, 

2018. The circuit court then reinstated Hollon’s probation at the hearing on March 

23, 2018, tolling his probationary period for fifty-seven days. 

Hollon then violated the conditions of his probation on April 20, 

2018. On May 25, 2018, the circuit court ordered him to serve sixty days and to 

“remain on probation as previously ordered.” Were we to accept Hollon’s 

argument that probation was reinstated at that time despite his jail sentence, this 

violation still tolls his probationary period for an additional thirty-five days.2 In 

total, these violations tolled Hollon’s probation for ninety-two days. By this 

reasoning, Hollon’s probation would have expired on October 15, 2019, nearly a 

2

It is within the circuit court’s discretion to determine whether jail time imposed punitively for a 

violation should be tolled against the probationary period. Dulin, 427 S.W.3d at 176. If the 

circuit court intends for the probationary period to continue during incarceration, it “should 

endeavor to make that intention explicit in the terms of the order imposing such conditions.” Id. 

We need not address whether the circuit court’s May 25, 2018, order meets this standard in order 

to find the court had jurisdiction to enter the September 20, 2019, order. 
-5-

month after the September 20, 2019, revocation hearing. Therefore, the circuit 

court had jurisdiction to enter the order extending Hollon’s probation. 

Having determined that the circuit court had jurisdiction on 

September 20, 2019, we will consider whether it properly extended his five-year 

probation. The Supreme Court, in Commonwealth v. Griffin, 942 S.W.2d 289, 291 

(Ky. 1997), held that a circuit court is not precluded by KRS 533.020(4) from 

extending the probation period beyond five years. Such an extension is allowed 

where a defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives the five-year limitation to 

avoid revocation of his probation. Id. 

Here, Hollon briefly argues that he did not knowingly and voluntarily 

agree to extend his probation. Counsel represented Hollon at the September 20, 

2019, hearing. Having seen and agreed to the terms of the extension, he and his 

counsel signed the order. In exchange for Hollon’s waiver of the five-year 

limitation, he avoided revocation of his probation. On this basis, the circuit court’s 

extension of Hollon’s probation was appropriate.

Based on the foregoing, the November 22, 2021, order of the Breathitt 

Circuit Court is affirmed. 

ALL CONCUR.
-6-

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:

Karen Shuff Maurer

Frankfort, Kentucky

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Daniel Cameron

Attorney General of Kentucky

Perry T. Ryan

Assistant Attorney General

Frankfort, Kentucky