Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Howard v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

March 16, 2018

BYRON HOWARD APPELLANT
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE

         APPEAL FROM KNOX CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE GREGORY A. LAY, JUDGE ACTION NO. 11-CR-00128

          BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Steven Nathan Goens Assistant Public Advocate Dept. of Public Advocacy Frankfort, Kentucky

          BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Andy Beshear Attorney General of Kentucky Joseph A. Beckett Assistant Attorney General Frankfort, Kentucky

          BEFORE: MAZE, TAYLOR AND THOMPSON, JUDGES.

          OPINION AFFIRMING

          THOMPSON, JUDGE:

         Byron Howard appeals from an order of the Knox Circuit Court revoking his probation. He argues the trial court abused its discretion because it did not consider the mandatory criteria for probation revocation set forth in Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 439.3106. Concluding that the probation revocation was part of an agreement with the Commonwealth, we affirm.

         On March 6, 2015, Howard entered a guilty plea to first-degree manufacturing methamphetamine pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). He was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, conditionally probated for three years. As a condition of his probation, he was not to commit another offense during the period of probation. Three months after his sentencing, new criminal charges were filed against Howard consisting of second-offense driving under the influence, possession of drug paraphernalia, and first-degree possession of a controlled substance.[1] A motion to revoke Howard's probation was filed on July 27, 2015.

         A probation revocation hearing was held on August 27, 2016. At that hearing, it was announced to the trial court an agreement had been reached to resolve the pending probation violation and the new charges. The Commonwealth stated as follows:

I think we've got a resolution to all three cases. I believe, and correct me if I get the details wrong, Mr. Howard will stipulate as to the violation in Knox Circuit Court 11-CR-128 where there is a revocation pending at this time…. In exchange for that, the Commonwealth would agree to dismiss 15-CR-183 and 15-CR-203.[2]

         Both of Howard's attorneys, one representing him in the Knox Circuit Court case and the other representing him in Laurel Circuit Court cases, and Howard confirmed the agreement. The trial court then asked for and received additional confirmation that a hearing was not required on the probation revocation. Having heard the terms of the agreement and verification that a hearing was not required, the trial court stated:

The defendant having stipulated to the allegations in the Commonwealth's motion to revoke, the court does hereby make a finding the defendant violated the terms and conditions of the previously imposed order on probation. That order is hereby set aside, the probation order, and the defendant is hereby sentenced to a period of ten years' confinement in the penitentiary. The court has considered all factors the court is required to consider pursuant to statute, and that is the sentence that the court will impose on the revoked sentence. I will direct that Corrections provide the defendant with his jail time credit.

         The trial court asked if there was anything further, to which Howard's counsel replied, "Nothing further, your honor."

         Pursuant to the stated agreement, the Commonwealth moved to dismiss the Laurel Circuit Court cases. When asked if Howard had any objection, his counsel responded "no." The trial court entered a judgment and sentence of imprisonment finding that Howard "willfully and without excuse violated the conditions of his probation." Howard appealed.

         Howard argues that despite his probation being revoked as part of the agreement to dismiss the new charges against him, the trial court was required to make written ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.