Court Opinion

ID: 9404548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 14:05:46.269303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:14.983862
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: JUNE 16, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals
                              NO. 2022-CA-0959-MR

CALEB L. RICE                                                         APPELLANT

                 APPEAL FROM FULTON CIRCUIT COURT
v.             HONORABLE TIMOTHY A. LANGFORD, JUDGE
                       ACTION NO. 21-CR-00025

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                                APPELLEE

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: DIXON, GOODWINE, AND KAREM, JUDGES.

GOODWINE, JUDGE: Caleb L. Rice (“Rice”) appeals from an order of the

Fulton Circuit Court revoking his probation. After careful review, finding no error,

we affirm.

             Rice appeals the circuit court’s order revoking his probation in 21-

CR-00025, but the circuit court revoked probation in two cases. On September 24,

2021, in 20-CR-00021, Rice pled guilty to convicted felon in possession of a

firearm, first-degree possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), and
possession of drug paraphernalia. Rice was sentenced to a total of eight years

imprisonment probated for five years. On September 27, 2021, in 21-CR-00025,

Rice pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, first-degree

possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), two counts of theft by

unlawful taking, first-degree criminal trespass, and first-degree criminal mischief.

Rice was sentenced to a total of ten years’ imprisonment, probated for ten years.

             On April 11, 2022, the Commonwealth filed a violation of supervision

report, and the circuit court issued a bench warrant for Rice’s arrest. On May 26,

2022, the circuit court held a probation revocation hearing. Probation and Parole

Officer Eric Meshew testified that he supervised Rice on both cases. On March

21, 2022, Rice’s house was searched. Rice was not present, but his brother and

girlfriend were there during the search. Officer Meshew testified the following

items were found during the search: a gun by the back door of a utility room,

alcohol in the freezer, methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in a bedroom, and

stolen property. Rice’s brother claimed responsibility for the stolen items, but

Meshew thought Rice’s brother was in jail when the items were stolen.

             Officer Meshew testified Rice contacted him on March 23, 2022, and

told him he would turn himself in on March 30, 2022, after completing a

construction job. Rice did not report and did not turn himself in on a new felony

                                         -2-
warrant on March 30, 2022. Rice was later arrested in April when he was found in

the attic of his home.

             Rice also testified during the hearing. Rice said he was at work when

his house was searched. He testified he shared his home with his girlfriend, his

brother, his brother’s girlfriend, a friend, and his friend’s girlfriend. Rice said he

did not know there was a gun or ammunition at his house.

             Rice’s counsel asked the circuit court to consider alternatives to

revocation. Counsel argued Rice was working a construction job to pay his

expenses, and he was unaware of the illegal items found in his home. Counsel

noted a bed would be available at a drug rehabilitation facility on June 1, 2022.

             The circuit court revoked Rice’s probation finding “you can’t

supervise someone you can’t find” and “he has a new felony charge pending

including possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. As far as I’m concerned,

that’s a propensity to violence.” Video Record (“VR”) 5/26/22 at 10:48:16-

10:48:27. Rice did not object to Officer Meshew’s testimony nor the circuit

court’s oral findings during the revocation hearing.

             On May 31, 2022, the circuit court entered a written order finding

revocation was appropriate based on the same findings. The sentences in each case

ran consecutively, so Rice was sentenced to a total of eighteen years’

imprisonment. This appeal from No. 21-CR-00025 only followed.

                                          -3-
             On appeal, Rice argues the circuit court abused its discretion in

revoking his probation because it failed to explain how allegations of possession of

a firearm made him a significant risk to the community at large. We review a

“decision to revoke probation . . . for an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v.

Andrews, 448 S.W.3d 773, 780 (Ky. 2014). “The test for abuse of discretion is

whether the trial judge’s decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or

unsupported by sound legal principles.” Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d

941, 945 (Ky. 1999).

             Kentucky Revised Statute (“KRS”) 439.3106 provides the criteria for

revoking probation:

             (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.

                                         -4-
Bagby v. Commonwealth, No. 2019-CA-001689-MR, 2020 WL 5268056, at *1

(Ky. App. Sep. 4, 2020).

             “KRS 439.3106(1) requires trial courts to find that the probationer’s

failure to abide by a condition of supervision constitutes a significant risk to prior

victims or the community, and that the probationer cannot be managed in the

community before probation may be revoked.” Andrews, 448 S.W.3d at 781.

Trial courts may not “perfunctorily recit[e] the statutory language in KRS

439.3106 . . . . There must be proof in the record established by a preponderance

of the evidence that a defendant violated the terms of his release and the statutory

criteria for revocation has been met.” Helms v. Commonwealth, 475 S.W.3d 637,

645 (Ky. App. 2015).

             Here, the circuit court made both oral and written findings explaining

how Rice violated his probation. During the hearing, the circuit court orally found

Rice:

             violated the terms and conditions of his probation. He
             has new felony charges pending which include [persistent
             felony offendor] PFO 1, possession of meth, receiving
             stolen property, possession of firearm by a convicted
             felon among others. Failure to report. Absconding, you
             can’t supervise somebody you can’t find. Alternative
             sanctions are not appropriate. Defendant shows a
             propensity to violence. He has a new felony charge of
             possession of a firearm of a convicted felon. As far as
             I’m concerned, that’s a propensity to violence. . . . Make
             the same findings in both cases.

                                          -5-
VR 5/26/22 at 10:48:04-10:48:34.

             The circuit court entered a form order with factual findings written in.

The circuit court found alternative sanctions were not appropriate because Rice

“demonstrated violence by new felony charge of possession of a firearm by

convicted felon.” Record (“R.”) at 78. The court further found alternative

sanctions were not applicable because Rice had “already had lesser restrictions

imposed than imprisonment” and you “cannot supervise someone you cannot

find.” R. at 79. Additionally, the circuit court found:

             The Court having considered all relevant facts in this
             case and finding that there is no alternative to revocation
             that would adequately address the violations of the
             Defendant to the terms and conditions of his/her
             probation order and the Defendants violations constitute
             a significant risk to the community at large and the
             Defendant cannot be managed in the community.

             KRS 439.3106 and case law do not require circuit courts to explain

how probation violations constitute a community risk, and Rice did not request

additional findings. Instead, the law requires proof from the record established by

a preponderance of the evidence that he violated the terms of his release and met

the statutory criteria for revocation. Helms, 475 S.W.3d at 645. The court’s

findings were not merely a perfunctory recitation of the language in KRS 439.3106

and included the required findings.

                                         -6-
             However, we caution the circuit to use precise statutory language in

conjunction with its factual findings in the future. In the portions of the order

explaining the circuit court’s factual findings, the court used different language

than the language in the statute. Instead of stating Rice’s violation “constitutes a

significant risk to . . . the community at large” as in KRS 439.3106, the circuit

court stated Rice “demonstrated violence.” R. at 78. Instead of stating Rice

“cannot be appropriately managed in the community” as in KRS 439.3106, the

circuit court stated, “[a]lternative sanctions are not applicable because the

Defendant has already had lesser restrictions than imprisonment by . . . cannot

supervise someone you cannot find . . .” and he had new pending charges. R. at

79.

             Despite using imprecise language, the circuit court’s factual findings

written into the order comport with the statutory criteria, and the statutory criteria

are stated later in the order. A new felon in possession of a handgun charge

constitutes a significant risk to the community, despite Rice’s argument to the

contrary. Rice absconded, and the circuit court stated that someone who cannot be

found could not be supervised, which satisfies the requirement that Rice cannot be

appropriately managed in the community. Again, we caution the circuit court that

citing the statutory criteria under KRS 439.3106 in conjunction with its factual

findings in its revocation orders is a better practice.

                                           -7-
           For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the Fulton Circuit

Court.

           ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                   BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Erin Hoffman Yang                       Daniel Cameron
Frankfort, Kentucky                     Attorney General of Kentucky

                                        Ken W. Riggs
                                        Assistant Attorney General
                                        Frankfort, Kentucky

                                      -8-