Opinion ID: 2539186
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Recent Kentucky Precedent.

Text: A third panel of the Court of Appeals rendered a published opinion in Gamble v. Commonwealth , [9] which dealt with a probation revocation for failure to pay child support. Unlike the two cases before us today, the probationer refused to testify at the revocation hearing to explain his nonpayment, contending he had a Fifth Amendment right not to testify. [10] The Gamble panel accepted the argument that payment of child support arrearages was restitution. [11] The panel also accepted that Bearden and Clayborn generally required the trial court to inquire into the reasons for nonpayment and consider alternatives to imprisonment if the probationer had made sufficient bona fide efforts to make payments but was unable to pay through no fault of his own. [12] But the panel rejected Gamble's argument that he had a Fifth Amendment right not to testify at the probation revocation hearing concerning his reasons for nonpayment of child support. [13] Because Gamble's refusal to testify prevented the trial court from hearing Gamble's explanation for nonpayment, the Court of Appeals ultimately determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation. [14] Despite Gamble's argument that due process required that the trial court make findings identifying the reason for revocation, the panel concluded that the reason for revocation (nonpayment of child support) was so clear from the record that Gamble's due process rights were not violated. [15]
After Gamble, this Court considered whether a trial court's findings of fact and reasons for revocation entered orally on the record from the bench are sufficient to satisfy due process in Commonwealth v. Alleman. [16] And despite noting that the United States Supreme Court in Morrissey v. Brewer expressly requires a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking parole[,] [17] a majority of this Court concluded that videotaped oral findings could sometimes suffice. We said: [O]ral findings and reasons for revocation as stated by the trial court from the bench at the conclusion of a revocation hearing satisfy a probationer's due process rights, presuming the findings and reasons support the revocation, when they are preserved by a reliable means sufficiently complete to allow the parties and reviewing courts to determine the facts relied on and the reasons for revoking probation. [18] So in Alleman, this Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court's probation revocation order because the trial court had orally stated on the record its reason for revocation [19] even though its written order only generally stated that the terms of probation were violated without specifying any other facts or reasons for revoking probation. [20] The current state of Kentucky caselaw lacks clarity or consistency to guide trial courts on due process requirements for resolving probation revocation motions based on a failure to comply with child support payment conditions. One panel of the Court of Appeals declared that a Bearden analysis is not required in such cases, and other panels have declared or suggested that Bearden analysis is required. As the panel noted in Gamble, some authority holds that Bearden analysis is not required when the defendant specifically agreed to the payment conditions as part of a plea agreement. [21] And perhaps there remains confusion over the findings that must be made by the trial court to allow meaningful appellate review of its decision. Some authority indicates that the trial court must specify the evidence it relied upon and the reasons for revocation. Other authority suggests that due process is satisfied if an acceptable basis for revocation can be gleaned from evidence in the record.