Brannon Rowe v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky
• Decided: June 13, 2025
• Docket: 2024-CA-0558
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

RENDERED: JUNE 13, 2025; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2024-CA-0558-MR

BRANNON ROWE APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM MCCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE W. A. KITCHEN, JUDGE ACTION NO. 21-CR-00940

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: A. JONES, L. JONES, AND KAREM, JUDGES.

KAREM, JUDGE: Brannon Rowe (“Rowe”) appeals the McCracken Circuit

Court’s order revoking his probation. However, since Rowe has already served out

his sentence for this matter, we dismiss this case as moot.

On November 8, 2021, Rowe was indicted by information for first-

degree possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine, first offense),

possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Rowe ultimately pled guilty, and the circuit court sentenced him to one (1) year imprisonment. On

February 25, 2022, the circuit court probated Rowe’s sentence for two (2) years,

with one of his probation conditions being that he report as directed to his

probation officer.

On May 25, 2022, Rowe’s probation and parole officer filed a

violation report indicating that Rowe had absconded from supervision. As a result,

the circuit court issued a bench warrant on June 9, 2022. Rowe was ultimately

arrested and served with the bench warrant on February 2, 2024.

On March 6, 2024, the circuit court held a revocation hearing. In a

written order entered on March 7, 2024, the circuit court revoked Rowe’s

probation for absconding and sentenced Rowe to serve the remainder of his one

(1)-year sentence. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

On appeal, Rowe asserts that the circuit court abused its discretion by

revoking his probation because it did not and could not explain why his actions

made him a significant risk to the community at large. Rowe also claims that the

circuit court erred in failing to consider graduated sanctions. However, before we

analyze these issues, “we must be certain an actual case or controversy exists.”

Belt v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Families and Children, 520 S.W.3d 406, 408

(Ky. App. 2017). In this case, the circuit court revoked Rowe’s probation and

-2- remanded him back into custody in March 2024; thus, Rowe has presumably

already served his full sentence of one (1)- year imprisonment.1

An issue is moot when it “cannot have any practical legal effect upon

a then existing controversy.” Id. (quoting Norton Hospitals, Inc. v. Willett, 483

S.W.3d 842, 845 (Ky. 2016)) (emphasis in original). “Appellate courts lack

subject matter jurisdiction to decide cases that have become moot.”

Commonwealth, Kentucky Bd. of Nursing v. Sullivan University System, Inc., 433

S.W.3d 341, 343 (Ky. 2014) (citation omitted). Indeed, “because [Rowe] has

already served [his] sentence and owes the Commonwealth nothing more, any

decision rendered by this Court would be merely advisory.” Commonwealth v.

Collinsworth, 628 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Ky. 2021). See also Philpot v. Patton, 837

S.W.2d 491, 493 (Ky. 1992) (“Our courts do not function to give advisory

opinions, even on important public issues, unless there is an actual case in

controversy.”).

Although there are exceptions to the mootness doctrine, as outlined in

Morgan v. Getter, 441 S.W.3d 94, 100 (Ky. 2014), the only one that appears

potentially applicable to this case is that the issue is “capable of repetition, yet

1 On March 6, 2024, McCracken Circuit Court entered a Commitment Order for Rowe to “serve bal[ance] of 1 [year] sentence.” The record shows no orders releasing Rowe prior to the expiration of his sentence. At the time of the writing of this Opinion, over one year has transpired.

-3- evading review[.]” (Citation omitted.) The test for this exception has two

elements: “(1) the challenged action must be too short in duration to be fully

litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there must be a reasonable

expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action

again.” Id. (citation omitted).

In a relatively recent case, the Kentucky Supreme Court explained

that “a meaningful difference exists between issues whose shelf life may be

measured in days and those which are most often measured in months and years.”

Collinsworth, 628 S.W.3d at 86. Continuing its analysis, the Supreme Court

reasoned that, in felony cases, “which often carry stiff penalties and significant

periods of incarceration, we can reasonably expect that future litigants will have an

opportunity to bring this matter to the Court’s attention in a live controversy.” Id.

Applying this reasoning to the present matter, we cannot say that the

arguments Rowe makes on appeal fall into the category of being “capable of

repetition, yet evading review.” Id. at 87. Consequently, we are constrained to

dismiss the matter as moot.

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that this case is dismissed

as moot.

ALL CONCUR.

-4- ENTERED: ____06/13/2025____ JUDGE, COURT OF APPEALS

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Kayley Barnes Russell Coleman Frankfort, Kentucky Attorney General of Kentucky

Christopher Henry Assistant Solicitor General Frankfort, Kentucky

-5-