Opinion ID: 2539186
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: This Court Published Commonwealth v. Alleman.

Text: 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.