Court Opinion

ID: 9376640
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-03 15:04:04.527867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:08.049341
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: FEBRUARY 24, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

            Commonwealth of Kentucky
                    Court of Appeals

                      NO. 2022-CA-0209-MR

ROY SMOTHERS                                          APPELLANT

            APPEAL FROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT
v.           HONORABLE KAELIN G. REED, JUDGE
      ACTION NOS. 19-CR-00034, 19-CR-00061, AND 20-CR-00003

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                               APPELLEE

AND

                      NO. 2022-CA-0210-MR

ROY SMOTHERS                                          APPELLANT

             APPEAL FROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT
v.            HONORABLE KAELIN G. REED, JUDGE
                   ACTION NO. 21-CR-00068

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                               APPELLEE

                           OPINION
                          AFFIRMING

                          ** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; CETRULO AND ECKERLE,
JUDGES.

THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: In this consolidated appeal, Roy Smothers appeals

from the revocation of his probation. He argues that he did not pose a significant

danger to the community and that his probation should not have been revoked. We

find no error and affirm.

                       FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                In case No. 19-CR-00034, Appellant pleaded guilty to felony theft by

unlawful taking.1 He received a sentence of five years and was ordered to pay

$7,875 in restitution. In case No. 19-CR-00061, Appellant pleaded guilty to felony

theft by unlawful taking and third-degree criminal trespass.2 He received a

sentence of two years and was ordered to pay $1,890 in restitution. He was

granted probation in both cases on December 19, 2019.

                In case No. 20-CR-00003, Appellant pleaded guilty to first-degree

criminal mischief3 and misdemeanor theft by unlawful taking.4 He received a

sentence of one year. In case No. 21-CR-00068, Appellant pleaded guilty to

1
    Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 514.030.
2
    KRS 511.080.
3
    KRS 512.020.
4
    KRS 514.030.

                                               -2-
promoting contraband in the first degree.5 He received a sentence of one year.

Appellant was granted probation for these convictions on June 17, 2021.

               During 2020, Appellant violated the terms of his probation on

multiple occasions. In January he admitted to the use of methamphetamine and

marijuana. In March he failed to complete drug treatment and failed to pay

restitution. In April he failed to complete drug treatment and absconded

from supervision. In September he failed to complete drug treatment and

absconded from supervision.

               In 2021, while still on probation, Appellant was charged with a felony

and misdemeanor charge, which he ultimately pleaded guilty to as discussed

previously. On September 8, 2021, Appellant admitted to using methamphetamine

and marijuana. Despite numerous probation violations, Appellant’s probation was

not revoked. Instead, he was repeatedly ordered to undergo drug treatment.

               On September 14, 2021, Appellant was ordered to undergo inpatient

drug treatment. Appellant was informed that when a spot became available at the

treatment facility Appellant would be contacted by his probation officer. Two days

later a spot at the treatment facility became available and Appellant’s probation

officer attempted to contact Appellant. The officer was unsuccessful.

5
    KRS 520.050.

                                          -3-
             Appellant’s probation officer was able to contact Appellant on

September 20, 2021. The officer informed Appellant that he needed to report to

the treatment facility on September 22, 2021. Appellant did not report to the

facility. In early October the probation officer attempted to get Appellant to report

to the probation offices; however, he was unsuccessful. A bench warrant was

issued for Appellant for failing to attend drug treatment and for absconding from

supervision. The probation officer had no further contact with Appellant until

Appellant’s arrest in December of 2021.

             A probation revocation hearing was held in January of 2022.

Appellant and his probation officer both testified. On February 3, 2022, the trial

court entered an order revoking Appellant’s probation. The trial court found that

Appellant absconded from supervision and failed to attend his drug treatment

program. It also found that Appellant’s failure to abide by the terms of his

probation presented a significant risk to the community. The court found it

significant that Appellant has been unable to fully comply with his probation since

it began in December of 2019. The court believed it would be fruitless to add more

accountability measures to Appellant’s probation and that Appellant could not be

adequately managed in the community. This appeal followed.

                                          -4-
                                    ANALYSIS

            Appellant argues on appeal that the trial court erred in revoking his

probation because he did not pose a significant risk to the community even though

he violated his probation requirements.

            KRS 439.3106 states:

            (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.

We review a probation revocation claim for abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v.

Gilmore, 587 S.W.3d 627, 629 (Ky. 2019).

            We do not believe the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked

Appellant’s probation. Appellant had been on probation for two years and had

been unable to follow the probation requirements. Appellant failed to complete

multiple drug treatment programs, absconded from supervision multiple times, and

                                          -5-
admitted to continued drug use. Appellant also received new felony and

misdemeanor convictions during his probation. The trial court was very lenient

with Appellant and gave him multiple chances to complete his probation.

                 We find support for our decision in the cases of McClure v.

Commonwealth, 457 S.W.3d 728 (Ky. App. 2015), and New v. Commonwealth,

598 S.W.3d 88 (Ky. App. 2019). In McClure, a previous panel of this Court held

that continued drug use and attempts to thwart proper probation supervision6

constituted a significant risk to the community. McClure, 457 S.W.3d at 733. In

New, this Court held that continued drug use and providing falsified paperwork to

a drug court constituted a significant risk to the community. New, 598 S.W.3d at

90-91. Here, Appellant continued to use drugs and undermined his drug treatment

and probation supervision on multiple occasions. This poses a significant risk to

the community and proves that Appellant cannot be managed in the community.

                                          CONCLUSION

                 Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not err in

revoking Appellant’s probation; therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court.

                 ALL CONCUR.

6
    The appellant in McClure tried to use another person’s urine to pass a drug test.

                                                  -6-
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:    BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Steven J. Buck           Daniel Cameron
Frankfort, Kentucky      Attorney General of Kentucky

                         Jenny L. Sanders
                         Assistant Attorney General
                         Frankfort, Kentucky

                        -7-