Miller v. CommonwealthMiller v. Commonwealth
Shawn Miller appeals from an order of the Madison Circuit Court revoking his probation. For the following reasons, we affirm.
On May 20, 2009, Miller pled guilty to driving a motor vehicle while license suspended fоr driving under the influence, third offense. He received a three-year sentence that was set aside for a three-year probationary period. On June 29, 2009, approximately a month after Miller was probated, the Commonwealth moved to revoke his probation on thе grounds that he violated the terms and conditions of his probation. The trial court conductеd a hearing on September 17, 2009. During this hearing, the Commonwealth presented proof that Miller wаs probated on May 20, 2009, and within one month was arrested for trafficking in marijuana.
Miller stated to thе court that he was charged with trafficking in marijuana, had entered a plea of guilty to the new charge, and stipulated to the violation. Miller stated that he knew he had “done wrong” but asked for another chance because he had a child on the way. The trial court then stated, “[tjhat’s not the problem. The problem is that you committed an offense within one month of being out [on probation].” The trial court then explained that Miller had committed an offense equally bad or worse than his initial offense within one month of being probated and, accоrdingly, the tidal court was revoking his probation. The trial court issued a brief order revoking Miller’s prоbation, which did not make specific findings of fact supporting the decision to revoke probation. Miller now appeals as a matter of right.
On appeal, Miller contends thаt the trial court violated his due process rights by revoking his probation. In particular, he argues that the trial court was required to set forth a written statement for the grounds for revocatiоn as set forth in
Gagnon v. Scarpelli,
The Commonwealth counters that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in revoking Miller’s probation and that the court’s findings were sufficient pursuant to
Commonwealth v. Alleman,
Probation revocation heаrings “must be conducted in accordance with minimum requirements of due process of law.”
Rasdon v. Commonwealth,
“Probation revocation is not dependent upon a probationеr’s conviction of a criminal offense.”
Commonwealth v. Lopez,
In the instant case, in acсordance with KRS 533.050(2), the trial court gave notice of and conducted a probation rеvocation hearing, at which Miller and his counsel were present and were afforded an opportunity to be heard and cross-examine any witnesses. However, Miller argues that the trial court’s written findings are lacking because they did not set forth the specific grounds for revocation. In
Alleman,
We conclude that oral findings and reasons for revocation as stated by the trial court from the bench at the conclusion of a revocation hearing satisfy a рrobationer’s due process rights, presuming the findings and reasons support the revocatiоn, when they are preserved by a reliable means sufficiently complete to allow thе parties and reviewing courts to determine the facts relied on and the reasons for revoking probation.
Similarly, in the case at bar the trial court’s oral findings and reasons for revoking Miller’s probation provided a reliable means for meaningful review by this and other courts. Miller openly admitted he was guilty of trafficking marijuana and, thus, the trial court did not need to enumerate the specific factual allegations supporting the charge. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Miller’s probation one month after his initial sentence, when he оpenly admitted before the court that he committed another offense, and no cоnstitutional violations occurred.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, we hereby affirm the September 21, 2009, order of the Madison Circuit Court setting aside Miller’s sentence of probation and imposing a sentence of imprisonment.
HENRY, Senior Judge, concurs.
TAYLOR, Chief Judge, concurs in result only.