Court Opinion

ID: 9896019
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 15:07:08.532734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:53.922635
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: NOVEMBER 9, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                 Commonwealth of Kentucky
                           Court of Appeals
                              NO. 2022-CA-0853-MR

CHARLES NELSON MEDINA                                                APPELLANT

                   APPEAL FROM OWEN CIRCUIT COURT
v.                 HONORABLE R. LESLIE KNIGHT, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 21-CR-00028

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                               APPELLEE

                                     OPINION
                                    AFFIRMING

                                   ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: DIXON, GOODWINE, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

DIXON, JUDGE: Charles Medina appeals the order revoking his probation,

entered by the Owen Circuit Court on May 24, 2022. Following a careful review

of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm.

          BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

             On October 4, 2021, Medina was sentenced to ten years’

imprisonment probated for five years after he pled guilty to being a convicted felon
in possession of a handgun, fleeing or evading in the second degree, driving under

the influence (first offense), and operating a motor vehicle with an expired license.

Medina’s release was conditional upon his abstaining from alcohol and completing

residential treatment.

              On February 16, 2022, the Commonwealth moved to revoke Medina’s

probation for violating the terms of his release. At the ensuing hearing on May 24,

2022, Medina stipulated that he had used alcohol and that he was terminated from

treatment for twice attempting to conceal restricted property – a cellphone.

Medina, an admitted alcoholic, testified that he relapsed upon learning that

“gruesome” charges of felony sexual abuse1 of a family member had been filed

against him. Conceding that the pending charges precluded him from reentering

treatment, Medina nonetheless requested that his probation be reinstated since he

had not been indicted and the charges could be dismissed.

              Citing Medina’s alcohol addiction, his history of domestic violence,2

and his penchant for possessing firearms, the court entered an order finding that

Medina had violated the terms of his release; his failure to comply posed a

1
  For clarity, the Commonwealth did not seek revocation on the basis of the new charges
because the alleged events predated Medina’s probation.
2
   Medina admitted he was prohibited by a domestic violence order from being within 500 feet of
his family’s residence and that the pending sexual assault charges arose from a domestic
situation.

                                              -2-
significant risk to the community; and he could not be managed in the community.

His probation was revoked, and this appeal followed. Additional facts will be

introduced as they become relevant.

                                 STANDARD OF REVIEW

                KRS3 439.3106(1) states that “[s]upervised individuals shall be

subject to” the following:

                (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 court’s decision revoking probation for an abuse of

discretion. Commonwealth v. Andrews, 448 S.W.3d 773, 780 (Ky. 2014) (citing

Commonwealth v. Lopez, 292 S.W.3d 878 (Ky. 2009)). An abuse of discretion

occurs if the court’s decision was “arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported

by sound legal principles.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d

941, 945 (Ky. 1999)).

3
    Kentucky Revised Statutes.

                                            -3-
                                LEGAL ANALYSIS

             Medina argues that the court abused its discretion by revoking his

probation without first making necessary findings detailing how his violation of

supervision constituted a significant risk to the community. Medina further asserts

that the court’s findings of significant risk and his inability to be managed in the

community were refuted by the court’s acknowledgment that he could receive

shock probation and reenter treatment at a later date. We disagree.

             Due process requires that a court make either written or oral findings

as to “the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation.”

Commonwealth v. Alleman, 306 S.W.3d 484, 487-88 (Ky. 2010). Additionally, to

comply with KRS 439.3106(1)(a), a court must specifically find that the

probationer’s failure to comply with the terms of their supervision constitutes a

significant risk to prior victims or the community and that they cannot be

appropriately managed in the community. Andrews, 448 S.W.3d at 780. However,

contrary to Medina’s assertion otherwise, the court need not detail the basis for

these findings; rather, all that is necessary is that the findings are supported by the

record. Kendrick v. Commonwealth, 664 S.W.3d 731, 734-35 (Ky. App. 2023);

New v. Commonwealth, 598 S.W.3d 88, 90-91 (Ky. App. 2019).

             Here, Medina conceded that he could not obtain necessary mental

health and alcohol addiction treatment, that he had recently relapsed, and that the

                                          -4-
purported trigger to his relapse was ongoing. Coupled with his unmanaged

conditions, Medina’s criminal history − driving under the influence, twice illegally

possessing a firearm, and armed robbery − supported revocation. Additionally, the

court’s willingness to consider shock probation if Medina ultimately became

eligible for treatment is consistent with this decision and does not, as Medina

argues, undermine the court’s findings. Consequently, we find no error.

             Next, Medina contends that the court’s refusal to consider sanctions

other than revocation necessitates a new hearing. Since neither the plain language

of KRS 439.3106 nor the cases interpreting it requires a court to consider lesser

punishments if the statutory prerequisites to revocation have been found, we again

disagree. See Andrews, 448 S.W.3d at 776-79. Indeed, the Supreme Court has

expressly held that revocation is within the discretion of the court “provided that

discretion is exercised consistent with statutory criteria.” Id. at 780. As required

by KRS 439.3106(1)(a), the court found that Medina posed a significant risk to the

community and that he could not be managed therein. Accordingly, even absent a

consideration of lesser sanctions, the court acted within its discretion in revoking

probation.

                                  CONCLUSION

             Therefore, and for the foregoing reasons, the order of the Owen

Circuit Court is AFFIRMED.

                                         -5-
           ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:     BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Travis Bewley             Daniel Cameron
Frankfort, Kentucky       Attorney General of Kentucky

                          Courtney E. Albini
                          Assistant Solicitor General
                          Frankfort, Kentucky

                         -6-