Opinion ID: 2285501
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: W. v. Commonwealth, 163 S.W.3d 4, 8-9 (Ky.2005) (Cooper, J., dissenting).

Text: The Appellee would not have been in drug court, and consequently would not have served sanctions in jail, without the underlying criminal conviction. Other treatment programs may impose sanctions for violations of their rules, but none of them has the power to incarcerate. Only the trial court, through its power to modify, rather than revoke, probation, may deprive a defendant of his liberty. And if the trial court does not think the defendant should continue at liberty due to violations, it has the power to revoke and impose incarceration in the penitentiary. These powers are granted by statute, rather than being inherent to protect the dignity and authority of the court, and when such statutory enactments specify what the court may do, the court should follow them, rather than relying on its inherent power. This does not mean that the court has any less ability to sanction a defendant or any person appearing before the court for disrespectful or improper behavior which demeans the dignity of the court, including anyone on probation. However, drug court program violations, such as those seen here, are not personal to the court, nor directed to defiance of the court, but rather are part of the treatment of addiction. When a trial court determines that a drug court participant has had ample opportunity to improve but has failed to do so, the court is properly justified in discharging him from the program and setting a revocation proceeding. Such behavior, however, does not justify a separate contempt proceeding, which requires a finding that the defendant intended to hold the court in disrepute through his addiction failures, either because he could not or would not give up the use of drugs. Even if he is being revoked because he committed another crime, for which a separate punishment may be imposed in the future, it is not a matter of contempt of court but of a violation of our laws. The Court of Appeals is correct in saying that a defendant cannot be punished for both contempt and a violation of the law for the same behavior. However, this Court does not agree that the trial court has the option to find contempt rather than to apply the law of probation. The punishment that follows from modification or revocation of probationnamely, service of the underlying term of imprisonment, whether in part or wholeis sufficient to address the behavior that violated probation. A defendant on probation may be incarcerated as a modification of his existing probation, or because he has violated some other law, or because of independent, intentional behavior showing disrespect for the court, constituting civil or criminal contempt. In the latter, the court imposing contempt will have the burden to establish the reasons why the act of the defendant should be considered contempt rather than a violation of his probation, which would subject him to modification or revocation, if questions of custody credit arise. The Appellee in this case is entitled to custody credit for the days he served as drug court program sanctions. The trial court modified his probation, rather than revoking him, in every instance in which days in jail were required. All the incarcerations were specifically tied to drug court program violations for drug use or drug-seeking behavior, not for any separate disrespect directed at the judge or the courts in general, as criminal contempt. They certainly could not be said to be in the nature of civil contempt, because the Appellee definitely did not hold the key to his cell door. His incarcerations were for specific periods of time, tied to a specific program violation.