Opinion ID: 1959972
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: statutory, factual, and procedural background

Text: The 1998 Kentucky General Assembly enacted statutory provisions governing the creation of pretrial diversion programs in Kentucky's circuit courts. KRS 533.250 outlines the eligibility requirements and required features of all such programs: (1) A pretrial diversion program shall be operated in each judicial circuit. The chief judge of each judicial circuit, in cooperation with the Commonwealth's Attorney, shall submit a plan for the pretrial diversion program to the Supreme Court for approval on or before December 1, 1999. The pretrial diversion program shall contain the following elements: (a) The program may be utilized for a person charged with a Class D felony offense who has not, within ten (10) years immediately preceding the commission of this offense, been convicted of a felony under the laws of this state, another state, or of the United States, or has not been on probation or parole or who has not been released from the service of any felony sentence within ten (10) years immediately preceding the commission of the offense. (b) The program shall not be utilized for persons charged with offenses for which probation, parole, or conditional discharge is prohibited under KRS 532.045. (c) No person shall be eligible for pretrial diversion more than once in a five (5) year period. (d) Any person charged with an offense not specified as precluding a person from pretrial diversion under paragraph (b) of this subsection may apply in writing to the trial court and the Commonwealth's attorney for entry into a pretrial diversion program. (e) Any person shall be required to enter an Alford plea or a plea of guilty as a condition of pretrial diversion. (2) The Commonwealth's attorney shall make a recommendation upon each application for pretrial diversion to the Circuit Judge in the court in which the case would be tried. The court may approve or disapprove the diversion. (3) The court shall assess a diversion supervision fee of a sufficient amount to defray all or part of the cost of participating in the diversion program. Unless the fee is waived by the court in the case of indigency, the fee shall be assessed against each person placed in the diversion program. The fee may be based upon ability to pay. [4] Subsequent statutory provisions specify the criteria the Commonwealth attorney must consider in making his or her KRS 533.250(2) recommendation as to a pretrial diversion application [5] and supply additional detail by referencing other statutory provisions to govern the term of, supervising authority for, and availability of restitution within pretrial diversion programs. [6] KRS 533.258 clarifies the nature and significance of pretrial diversion  i.e., that the legislature intends for a successful pretrial diversion to, in effect, wipe the slate clean as to those charges [7]  and states that, after successful completion of pretrial diversion, the charges against the defendant shall be listed as `dismissed-diverted' and shall not constitute a criminal conviction. [8] If, however, the defendant does not successfully complete pretrial diversion, KRS 533.256 contemplates that the trial court will enter final judgment in accordance with the defendant's guilty plea. [9] Finally, KRS 533.262 reflects the General Assembly's determination that, although the district courts may employ other pretrial diversion programs, [10] the pretrial diversion program authorized in the earlier statutory provisions shall be the sole program utilized in the Circuit Courts of the Commonwealth except for drug court diversion as approved by the Supreme Court and the Department of Corrections. [11] The Kenton Circuit Court Pretrial Diversion Program, which was adopted pursuant to, and thus substantially mirrors, the above-described statutory authority, sets out procedures governing applications for pretrial diversion in Kenton Circuit Court: III. Procedure A. As soon as possible after indictment in circuit court, and no later than 14 days after arraignment, except for good cause shown, any person eligible for the program may apply in writing to the Circuit Court and the Commonwealth for entry of a pretrial diversion order. [Last minute filing of an application for diversion may cause delay in the scheduled trial for the case and should be avoided.] B. In applying for pretrial diversion, counsel for the defendant must state, and the defendant must agree on the record, in the event diversion is granted, any right to a speedy trial or disposition of the charge against him/her is waived. The waiver must accompany the written request for diversion. C. The Commonwealth shall make a written recommendation to the Court in response to each application within 7 days. D. Before making a recommendation to the Court, the Commonwealth shall: 1. Have a criminal record check made by telephoning Pretrial Services at AOC .... 2. Interview and seek input from the victim and/or victim's family and advise them of the time, date, and place the motion will be heard by the Court; and 3. When diversion is recommended, the Commonwealth must make written recommendations to the Court of conditions for the pretrial diversion as well as the appropriate sentence to be imposed if the diversion agreement is unsuccessful. [The Commonwealth will be bound by its recommendation. In the event diversion is unsuccessful, the Commonwealth will not be permitted to argue for a sentence in excess of the original recommendation. Moreover, the Court cannot impose a sentence greater than the recommendation without first allowing the defendant the opportunity to withdraw the plea.] [The Commonwealth is statutorily required to make a recommendation, whether favorable or unfavorable on every application. The circuit court cannot act on a request for diversion absent a recommendation from the prosecutor. DUE TO CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS, IT IS BELIEVED THAT DIVERSION IS UNAVAILABLE ABSENT A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMONWEALTH. It is recommended that the defense attorney simultaneously submit an application to the Circuit Court and to the prosecutor. The Commonwealth will then request the criminal record check, contact the victim, etc.; after charges are filed, AOC Form 347, styled MOTION FOR PRETRIAL DIVERSION OF A CLASS D FELONY, which contains the Commonwealth's recommendation, will be filed by the Commonwealth with the Circuit Court Clerk]. [12] The Kenton Circuit Court local rules further: (1) provide that [t]he Court may, in its discretion, order pretrial diversion for eligible petitioners upon terms and conditions as it deems appropriate; [13] (2) list both mandatory and discretionary conditions for pretrial diversion; [14] (3) outline procedures for voiding the pretrial diversion order upon a showing of failure to comply with the conditions of diversion or failure to make satisfactory progress; [15] (4) provide that, [i]f an order of pretrial diversion is voided, the defendant shall be sentenced according to law, based on his or her prior plea of guilt; [16] and (5) give effect to the legislature's intent by providing that [i]f the defendant successfully completes the provisions of the pretrial diversion agreement, the charges against the defendant shall be dismissed. [17] The cases now before the Court illustrate divergent views among the divisions of the Kenton Circuit Court regarding the local rules' commentary and, more fundamentally, whether the trial court has the authority to grant a pretrial diversion application over the Commonwealth's objection. The action styled as Flynt v. Bartlett, 2000-SC-0587-MR, arises from a Kenton Circuit Court indictment against Appellant Flynt for a felony drug offense. In the trial court, Appellant Flynt filed an Application for Entry of a Pretrial Diversion Order. In response to the application, the Commonwealth indicated its opposition and recommended against Appellant Flynt's participation in pretrial diversion. After concluding that it had no authority to approve the application without the Commonwealth's agreement, the trial court entered an order overruling Appellant Flynt's application: Having heard arguments of counsel and having reviewed the enabling legislation and the local diversion rules of the Kenton Circuit Court which have been approved by the Kentucky Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that it is without authority to order the Defendant be admitted to pre-trial diversion. KRS 533.250 does not mandate that a person charged with any particular crime must be admitted to pre-trial felony diversion. That statute speaks in terms of those who are eligible, and those who are not ineligible for such programs. Each judicial circuit is required to submit its plan for pre-trial diversion, which the Kenton Circuit Court has done. The plan adopted by the Kenton Circuit Court, and approved by the Kentucky Supreme Court, provides that due to constitutional considerations, diversion is unavailable absent a favorable recommendation from the Commonwealth. As stated above, the Commonwealth opposes diversion for the Defendant and has refused to make a favorable recommendation to this Court. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant's application for an Order admitting him to pre-trial felony diversion is OVERRULED. Appellant Flynt filed a second application for pretrial diversion, and the trial court again overruled the application. Appellant Flynt then petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus directing Appellee Judge Bartlett to exercise discretion and to rule upon the Defendant's motion for Felony Diversion under KRS 533.250. The Court of Appeals denied Appellant Flynt's petition after concluding that the extraordinary relief requested was not available because Appellant Flynt has an adequate remedy by his ability to raise this issue in an appeal of a conviction if that should occur. Appellant Flynt then appealed to this Court as a matter-of-right. In Commonwealth v. Elliott, 2000-SC-0399-TG, another division of the Kenton Circuit Court reached a different conclusion as to the scope of a trial court's authority under KRS 533.250(2). Appellee Elliott, who was charged with a felony theft offense, filed a Motion for Pretrial Diversion in which he acknowledged that the Commonwealth of Kentucky has indicated to the Defendant's counsel its opposition to this motion. The Commonwealth then filed a memorandum with the trial court in which it argued that the trial court did not have the authority to approve Appellee Elliott's application because the Commonwealth had not recommended that it approve the application. The trial court directed the parties to brief the issue further, and, in response to the Commonwealth's position, Appellee Elliott argued: (1) that the trial court was not bound by the commentary in the Kenton Circuit Court rules because  under the rules, a favorable recommendation from the Plaintiff is not required for the Court to grant felony pretrial diversion; and (2) that, even if the Commonwealth's agreement is required for pretrial diversion, the Commonwealth arbitrarily withheld a favorable recommendation in his case. The trial court agreed with both of Appellee Elliott's arguments, and, in its order granting the motion, characterized pretrial diversion as simply an additional sentencing option available to the court: KRS 533.350(2) requires no more than that the Commonwealth make a recommendation, favorable or unfavorable, and the court approve or disapprove the diversion. The statute does not mandate the favorable recommendation of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth argues that such an application unconstitutionally violates principles of separation of powers and unconstitutionally infringes upon the prerogatives of the Commonwealth. However, it is evident that the legislature created an alternative disposition, diversion available to the Court along with probation and conditional discharge. Accordingly, the legislature placed diversion in KRS Chapter 533 which addresses probation and conditional discharge. The Commonwealth elects to prosecute, which it did in this case and obtained a grand jury indictment. That having been done, without judicial interference, upon the defendant's plea of guilty the court is free to impose diversion consistent with the statutory scheme found in KRS Chapter 533. ... Of additional concern to the Court is the Commonwealth's decision to exclude all Class D felony thefts, regardless of the circumstances of each defendant, wherein an employee is indicted for theft from an employer. Defendant argues that this is an arbitrary exclusion. The Commonwealth has offered its reasons for such an excluded group. This court concludes, however that to exclude from diversion an entire class of persons otherwise statutorily eligible, without giving any consideration to the characteristics and circumstances of each individual, is in the context of KRS 533.250 arbitrary. The court feels compelled to approve defendant's request for diversion in this case .... The court has given consideration to the commentary to the Class D Felony Pretrial Diversion Rules of the Kenton Circuit Court, which suggest that the Commonwealth's favorable recommendation is required. This court believes that the above considerations ... are more compelling than the commentary to the rules. ... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the defendant's motion for pretrial diversion is GRANTED. The parties are directed to appear in court ... for further proceedings consistent with this order. The Commonwealth then filed an appeal under KRS 22A.020(4) from the trial court's order. In response to the Court of Appeals's recommendation, we accepted transfer of the appeal to this Court in order to resolve this issue of first impression regarding Kentucky circuit courts' authority under KRS 533.250.