Commonwealth v. Andrews
2014 Ky. LEXIS 607
Ky.2014Background
- Joseph Andrews pled guilty (Dec 20, 2010) to unlawful possession of a methamphetamine precursor (2nd offense), sentenced to 10 years with 5 years supervised probation; condition: no drug use unless prescribed.
- Andrews initially refused treatment at sentencing, then tested positive for methamphetamine in May 2011, denied use, later admitted and entered a long-term treatment program.
- Probation officer reported the violation; Andrews was arrested and a revocation hearing was held where he stipulated to the violation.
- Trial court revoked probation after finding Andrews lied to his officer, had prior felonies, had refused treatment at sentencing, posed a risk to the community, and could not be managed in the community.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion and that KRS 439.3106 requires specific findings before revocation; Commonwealth sought discretionary review.
- Kentucky Supreme Court granted review, held KRS 439.3106 applies to trial courts and affirmed the trial court’s revocation as not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Andrews' Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether KRS 439.3106 applies to trial courts in probation revocation proceedings | KRS 439.3106 limits revocation and requires specific findings before a court revokes probation; trial court abused discretion by failing to comply | KRS 439.3106 governs DOC implementation of graduated sanctions only, not judicial revocation decisions | KRS 439.3106 applies to both DOC and trial courts; courts must consider statute’s criteria before revoking probation |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking Andrews’s probation | Single positive drug test and criminal history insufficient; revocation was arbitrary | Trial court properly considered lies, prior felonies, refusal of treatment, and risk to community; decision was within discretion | No abuse of discretion; trial court made findings that probationer posed significant risk and could not be managed in the community |
Key Cases Cited
- Shawnee Telecom Resources, Inc. v. Brown, 354 S.W.3d 542 (Ky. 2011) (statutory construction requires giving effect to legislative intent as reflected in language)
- Commonwealth v. Lopez, 292 S.W.3d 878 (Ky. 2009) (revocation review standard: abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941 (Ky. 1999) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Reyes v. Hardin County, 55 S.W.3d 337 (Ky. 2001) (statutes construed to effect legislative purpose)
- Brooks v. Commonwealth, 217 S.W.3d 219 (Ky. 2007) (statutes should not be construed to render parts meaningless)
- Mark D. Dean, P.S.C. v. Commonwealth Bank, 434 S.W.3d 489 (Ky. 2014) (appellate courts may correct erroneous legal interpretations)
- Emberton v. GMRI, Inc., 299 S.W.3d 565 (Ky. 2009) (appellate courts may affirm on alternative grounds)