RENDERED: AUGUST 16, 2024; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2023-CA-0007-MR

CHRISTOPHER GOODWIN APPELLANT 

v. 

APPEAL FROM LOGAN CIRCUIT COURT

HONORABLE JOE W. HENDRICKS, JR., JUDGE

ACTION NO. 21-CR-00104

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE 

OPINION

AFFIRMING

**   **  **

BEFORE: ACREE, CALDWELL, AND LAMBERT, JUDGES.

ACREE, JUDGE: Appellant, Christopher Goodwin, appeals the Logan Circuit 

Court’s order revoking his probation. Having reviewed the record, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

On January 9, 2021, Appellant was arrested for trafficking 

methamphetamine after officers found a glass smoking pipe, a black digital scale, 

and 4.5 grams of methamphetamine in Appellant’s vehicle. A grand jury indicted 
-2-

him on March 12, 2021, and on August 5, 2021, he pleaded guilty to first-degree 

trafficking in a controlled substance, along with numerous traffic violations. Per 

his agreement with the Commonwealth, Appellant owed $350 in fines, and the 

court sentenced him to 10 years of incarceration, probated for five years. 

As part of his probation, the court placed several conditions on 

Appellant, including committing no further offenses, remaining in the supervised 

area, and properly reporting to his probation officer as directed. As the record 

reveals, Appellant failed to comply with these conditions in numerous ways.

First, shortly after beginning his probation, Appellant admitted to 

using marijuana and methamphetamine. Second, Appellant failed to cooperate or 

report to his probation officer. On January 4, 2022, Appellant failed to report at 

the appointed time. Then, on January 14, 2022, he failed to report to the meeting 

rescheduled from January 4. Third, on January 15, 2022, Appellant received a 

traffic citation for expired registration plates, operating a motor vehicle with an 

expired operator’s license, and failure to maintain required insurance/security. 

Appellant failed to disclose these traffic violations to his probation officer within 

72 hours, which he was required to do.

After this sequence of events, the Commonwealth requested a hearing 

concerning Appellant’s probation and his failure to comply with its conditions. It 
-3-

appears neither the Commonwealth nor the probation officer sought to revoke 

Appellant’s revocation at that time. 

The court scheduled the hearing for January 20, 2022, and Appellant 

failed to appear. The court issued a bench warrant for Appellant’s arrest and 

rescheduled the hearing for April 21, 2022 – which was then continued until June 

30, 2022. Prior to this hearing, on March 15, 2022, law enforcement arrested 

Appellant, and he remained in jail until his June 30 hearing.

At this hearing, the Commonwealth agreed to allow Appellant to 

resume probation, so long as Appellant’s five-years of probation restarted on June 

30, 2022, and he agree to not leave Logan County, unless he had written 

permission. Appellant assented to these terms, and the court directed him to report 

to his probation officer the next day. He failed to do so.

On July 20, Appellant’s probation officer filed a “Violation of 

Supervision Report.” This was not the first report filed by his probation officer;

however, we note this report because in it the probation officer outlines the details 

of an emergency protective order (EPO) sought by Appellant’s girlfriend against 

him. In the EPO petition, Appellant’s girlfriend alleged Appellant said he would 

kill her. Additionally, Appellant told his girlfriend, among an array of other 

threats, that he would “bash [her] . . . brains in.” Appellant reiterated threats on his 

girlfriend’s life during a recorded phone call he made in the jail to her. After these 
-4-

threats, the Commonwealth filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s probation, and the 

court scheduled a hearing on July 28, 2022.

Appellant did not attend this hearing because he had two court 

appearances on that day and could not attend both. However, after missing this 

hearing, Appellant absconded and disappeared for nearly two months. By his own 

admissions, Appellant was living in the woods during this time. Ultimately, law 

enforcement apprehended him in Muhlenberg County, and he appeared in court on 

September 29, 2022.

At issue in this appearance was whether the court would revoke 

Appellant’s probation. The court heard all the above-mentioned facts and, upon 

considering the evidence, revoked Appellant’s probation. This appeal now 

follows.

ANALYSIS

Appellant argues the circuit court failed to comply with the 

requirements for revoking probation pursuant to KRS1 439.3106. More 

specifically, Appellant argues the Commonwealth failed to present evidence 

showing Appellant posed a significant risk to the community, and the circuit court 

failed to make sufficient findings on this element. We disagree.

1 Kentucky Revised Statutes.
-5-

When reviewing a circuit court’s decision to revoke an individual’s 

probation, we review for abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Andrews, 448 

S.W.3d 773, 780 (Ky. 2014) (citing Commonwealth v. Lopez, 292 S.W.3d 878, 881 

(Ky. 2009)). Accordingly, this Court “will disturb a ruling only upon finding that 

‘the trial judge’s decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by 

sound legal principles.’” Andrews, 448 S.W.3d at 780 (quoting Commonwealth v. 

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

It is “[w]ithout question, the power to revoke probation is vested in 

the trial courts and in the trial courts alone.” Id. at 777. Nevertheless, prior to 

revoking an individual’s probation, a circuit court must consider KRS 439.3106. 

Id. at 776. Pursuant to KRS 439.3106:

(1) Supervised individuals shall be subject to:

(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.
-6-

KRS 439.3106(1). Thus, the Kentucky Supreme Court said: “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.” Andrews, 448 S.W.3d at 780.

When making these findings, “perfunctorily reciting the statutory 

language in KRS 439.3106 is not enough.” Helms v. Commonwealth, 475 S.W.3d 

637, 645 (Ky. App. 2015). Rather, “[t]here must be proof in the record established 

by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant violated the terms of his 

release and the statutory criteria for revocation has been met.” Id. When we 

undertake this analysis, we must “look to both the written and oral findings in 

conjunction with one another and not separately in a vacuum.” Commonwealth v. 

Gilmore, 587 S.W.3d 627, 630 (Ky. 2019).

Here, sufficient evidence exists to demonstrate that Appellant is a 

significant risk to the community. Appellant argues his mere failure to report to 

his probation officer and his failure to attend court dates is not enough to find he is 

a danger to the community. Glossing over the dangers of allowing unlicensed and 

uninsured drivers on the road, Appellant fails to account for his violent threats 

against his girlfriend and his disappearance for nearly two months to go live out in 

the woods. 
-7-

The court heard substantial evidence of the repeated and varied threats 

Appellant made against his girlfriend’s life. In short, he threatened to violently 

beat her to death if she ever ended their relationship. Appellant’s girlfriend relayed 

those threats in her EPO petition, but the court also heard Appellant make these 

threats via a recorded jail call. With Appellant’s notable track record of failing to 

report and failing to appear in court, it would be nearly impossible to manage 

Appellant and protect his girlfriend from him, much less the community at large. 

It appears the only time Appellant attended his court dates were instances where he 

was already in custody.

Moreover, the underlying criminal charges to which Appellant 

initially pleaded guilty arose from his possession and distribution of 

methamphetamines. During his time on probation, Appellant admitted to using 

illegal substances and failed to report for substance-abuse assessments. There is no 

indication in the record Appellant ever sought treatment or help for his drug use, 

despite this being a condition of his probation. 

Notwithstanding these above violations, Appellant claims, “[t]he 

officer would have been justified using graduated sanctions to punish 

Christopher’s violations” instead of outright revoking his probation. (Appellant’s 

Brief at 17.) This argument has no merit as the probation officer did just this, and 
-8-

the record reveals a slow series of graduated consequences leading up to 

Appellant’s probation revocation. 

To begin, the probation officer required Appellant to seek a 

substance-abuse assessment after admitting to use of marijuana and 

methamphetamines while on probation. Appellant did not seek out this 

assessment, but the probation officer did not recommend revocation because of it. 

After this, Appellant committed further traffic violations of the same nature as the 

charges he pleaded guilty to. Again, the probation officer did not recommend 

revocation, but the Commonwealth requested a hearing on this matter. Appellant 

failed to appear at that court hearing. Even though he did not attend this court 

date, the Commonwealth did not ask for revocation but agreed to allow Appellant 

to remain on probation. The day after this hearing, Appellant failed to report to his 

probation officer. 

Appellant had every opportunity to comply with the conditions of his 

probation, but he failed to do so. The record reveals Appellant received “graduated 

sanctions to punish Christopher’s violations” but his behavior did not change, and 

he did not cooperate. (Appellant’s Brief at 17.) It was only after Appellant 

absconded and his girlfriend sought an EPO against him that the probation officer 

recommended revocation and the Commonwealth sought it. 
-9-

CONCLUSION

The circuit court heard evidence sufficient to revoke Appellant’s 

probation and, because of this, did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant’s 

probation. Having reviewed the record, Appellant’s argument has no merit here. 

We affirm.

ALL CONCUR. 

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:

Steven J. Buck

Frankfort, Kentucky 

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Daniel Cameron

Attorney General of Kentucky 

Joseph A. Beckett

Assistant Attorney General 

Frankfort, Kentucky