FROM KNOX CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE GREGORY A. LAY, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 11-CR-00128
FOR APPELLANT: Steven Nathan Goens Assistant Public Advocate
Dept. of Public Advocacy Frankfort, Kentucky
FOR APPELLEE: Andy Beshear Attorney General of Kentucky
Joseph A. Beckett Assistant Attorney General Frankfort,
BEFORE: MAZE, TAYLOR AND THOMPSON, JUDGES.
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
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. A motion to revoke Howard's probation
was filed on July 27, 2015.
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
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.
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
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.
trial court asked if there was anything further, to which
Howard's counsel replied, "Nothing further, your
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.
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 ...