RENDERED: JULY 2, 2026; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
NO. 2025-CA-1074-MR
JACOB BOWLES APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM MONROE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE DAVID L. WILLIAMS, JUDGE ACTION NO. 22-CR-00002
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
OPINION AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CALDWELL, A. JONES, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.
JONES, A., JUDGE: Jacob Bowles appeals from the Monroe Circuit Court’s order
sentencing him to five years’ imprisonment after it entered an order voiding his
pretrial diversion. After considering the facts and the law, we affirm the trial
court’s judgment. I. BACKGROUND
The underlying incident that gave rise to this case was a single-vehicle
accident on January 24, 2022, in Monroe County, Kentucky. Bowles failed to
negotiate a wet curve while driving and crashed into a ditch. When they arrived,
responding officers discovered over five pounds of marijuana in Bowles’s vehicle.
As a result of the incident, on February 17, 2022, the Monroe County grand jury
indicted Bowles for operating a motor vehicle with an expired operator’s license,1
possession of an open alcoholic beverage container in a motor vehicle,2 driving too
fast for traffic conditions,3 and trafficking in marijuana (first offense).4 A few
months afterward, the Commonwealth extended Bowles a generous plea offer. In
exchange for Bowles’s guilty plea, the Commonwealth agreed to dismiss all counts
of the indictment except for trafficking in marijuana, which it would reduce in
severity to the level of a Class D felony.5 Pursuant to the agreement, Bowles
would accept a five-year sentence, with the term diverted for five years. Bowles
1 Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 186.410(1). 2 KRS 189.530(2). 3 KRS 189.390(2). 4 KRS 218A.1421(4). Trafficking in five or more pounds of marijuana is a Class C felony on the first offense, and a Class B felony for a second or subsequent offense. 5 KRS 218A.1421(3) defines trafficking in marijuana in amounts greater than eight ounces, but less than five pounds, as a Class D felony for a first offense.
-2- agreed to the terms of the plea offer. The trial court accepted his guilty plea on
May 19, 2022, and thereafter placed him on supervised diversion.
Shortly thereafter, Bowles applied for transfer of his supervision to
authorities in Tennessee because he wished to live there with his mother.
Unfortunately, Tennessee denied the transfer because Bowles’s mother was living
with a friend, and it deemed the living situation unstable. The Commonwealth
responded by moving for Bowles to receive unsupervised diversion for as long as
he resided in Tennessee, with the caveat that, if he moved back to Kentucky, he
would be returned to supervision. The trial court signed an agreed order to this
effect in September 2022.
At some point between the signing of this order and May 2025,
however, Bowles apparently returned to Kentucky without informing the trial court
or probation and parole. In May 2025, Bowles was living with his mother, his
uncle, and his girlfriend, Jayeda Perdue, in Glasgow, Kentucky. On May 20, 2025,
Bowles and Perdue were at home when Bowles accused her of infidelity and
demanded to see her cell phone. She refused. The argument ended in a physical
altercation in which Bowles slapped Perdue before punching her twice with a
closed fist. She called the police, and Bowles left the scene before they arrived.
The responding officer took Perdue’s report and photographed her injuries, which
included a swollen face and a split lip. He then took her to the hospital emergency
-3- department for treatment. Shortly afterward, Bowles was arrested and pleaded
guilty to fourth-degree assault in Barren District Court.
As a result of the assault charge and subsequent conviction, the
Commonwealth moved to revoke Bowles’s diversion and impose his five-year
sentence. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on June 12, 2025, in which
it heard testimony from Perdue, the responding police officer, and Bowles himself.
The trial court was notably unhappy with Bowles’s assault conviction and
ultimately revoked his diversion. Despite its unhappiness with Bowles’s conduct,
however, the trial court left open the possibility that Bowles could qualify for
probation at a later time. The trial court reiterated this point at the sentencing
hearing, encouraging Bowles to file a motion for shock probation. The trial court
entered a final judgment and sentence on July 17, 2025, sentencing Bowles to a
five-year prison term pursuant to his plea agreement. Less than one month later,
the trial court entered an agreed order placing Bowles on shock probation. This
appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
Pretrial diversion in Kentucky is governed by RCr6 8.04 and KRS
533.250 et seq. A trial court’s decisions regarding pretrial diversion are reviewed
using the same criteria as decisions to revoke probation. Richardson v.
6 Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure.
-4- Commonwealth, 494 S.W.3d 495, 498 (Ky. App. 2015). “A decision to revoke
probation is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Andrews, 448
S.W.3d 773, 780 (Ky. 2014) (citation omitted). “Under our abuse of discretion
standard of review, we will disturb a ruling only upon finding that ‘the trial judge’s
decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal
principles.’” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky.
1999)).
The discretion afforded to the trial court to revoke probation or
diversion, however, must be exercised “consistent with statutory criteria.” New v.
Commonwealth, 598 S.W.3d 88, 90 (Ky. App. 2019) (quoting Andrews, 448
S.W.3d at 780). “Specifically, before revoking probation a trial court must make
two findings under [KRS] 439.3106(1): (1) whether the alleged probation violation
‘constitutes a significant risk to prior victims of the supervised individual or the
community at large’ and (2) whether the defendant ‘cannot be appropriately
managed in the community[.]’” Id. A trial court is required to make these
findings, and they must be “supported by the evidence of record[,]” but the trial
court is not required to provide any explanation for them. McClure v.
Commonwealth, 457 S.W.3d 728, 733 (Ky. App. 2015).
In his sole argument on appeal, Bowles contends the trial court abused
its discretion when it voided his diversion. Specifically, Bowles contends that the
-5- trial court erred in finding that he could not be supervised while on diversion
because he had not yet been subject to supervision. Instead of proceeding directly
to revocation, Bowles argues that the trial court should have imposed a lesser
sanction that included supervision.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
RENDERED: JULY 2, 2026; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
NO. 2025-CA-1074-MR
JACOB BOWLES APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM MONROE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE DAVID L. WILLIAMS, JUDGE ACTION NO. 22-CR-00002
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
OPINION AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CALDWELL, A. JONES, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.
JONES, A., JUDGE: Jacob Bowles appeals from the Monroe Circuit Court’s order
sentencing him to five years’ imprisonment after it entered an order voiding his
pretrial diversion. After considering the facts and the law, we affirm the trial
court’s judgment. I. BACKGROUND
The underlying incident that gave rise to this case was a single-vehicle
accident on January 24, 2022, in Monroe County, Kentucky. Bowles failed to
negotiate a wet curve while driving and crashed into a ditch. When they arrived,
responding officers discovered over five pounds of marijuana in Bowles’s vehicle.
As a result of the incident, on February 17, 2022, the Monroe County grand jury
indicted Bowles for operating a motor vehicle with an expired operator’s license,1
possession of an open alcoholic beverage container in a motor vehicle,2 driving too
fast for traffic conditions,3 and trafficking in marijuana (first offense).4 A few
months afterward, the Commonwealth extended Bowles a generous plea offer. In
exchange for Bowles’s guilty plea, the Commonwealth agreed to dismiss all counts
of the indictment except for trafficking in marijuana, which it would reduce in
severity to the level of a Class D felony.5 Pursuant to the agreement, Bowles
would accept a five-year sentence, with the term diverted for five years. Bowles
1 Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 186.410(1). 2 KRS 189.530(2). 3 KRS 189.390(2). 4 KRS 218A.1421(4). Trafficking in five or more pounds of marijuana is a Class C felony on the first offense, and a Class B felony for a second or subsequent offense. 5 KRS 218A.1421(3) defines trafficking in marijuana in amounts greater than eight ounces, but less than five pounds, as a Class D felony for a first offense.
-2- agreed to the terms of the plea offer. The trial court accepted his guilty plea on
May 19, 2022, and thereafter placed him on supervised diversion.
Shortly thereafter, Bowles applied for transfer of his supervision to
authorities in Tennessee because he wished to live there with his mother.
Unfortunately, Tennessee denied the transfer because Bowles’s mother was living
with a friend, and it deemed the living situation unstable. The Commonwealth
responded by moving for Bowles to receive unsupervised diversion for as long as
he resided in Tennessee, with the caveat that, if he moved back to Kentucky, he
would be returned to supervision. The trial court signed an agreed order to this
effect in September 2022.
At some point between the signing of this order and May 2025,
however, Bowles apparently returned to Kentucky without informing the trial court
or probation and parole. In May 2025, Bowles was living with his mother, his
uncle, and his girlfriend, Jayeda Perdue, in Glasgow, Kentucky. On May 20, 2025,
Bowles and Perdue were at home when Bowles accused her of infidelity and
demanded to see her cell phone. She refused. The argument ended in a physical
altercation in which Bowles slapped Perdue before punching her twice with a
closed fist. She called the police, and Bowles left the scene before they arrived.
The responding officer took Perdue’s report and photographed her injuries, which
included a swollen face and a split lip. He then took her to the hospital emergency
-3- department for treatment. Shortly afterward, Bowles was arrested and pleaded
guilty to fourth-degree assault in Barren District Court.
As a result of the assault charge and subsequent conviction, the
Commonwealth moved to revoke Bowles’s diversion and impose his five-year
sentence. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on June 12, 2025, in which
it heard testimony from Perdue, the responding police officer, and Bowles himself.
The trial court was notably unhappy with Bowles’s assault conviction and
ultimately revoked his diversion. Despite its unhappiness with Bowles’s conduct,
however, the trial court left open the possibility that Bowles could qualify for
probation at a later time. The trial court reiterated this point at the sentencing
hearing, encouraging Bowles to file a motion for shock probation. The trial court
entered a final judgment and sentence on July 17, 2025, sentencing Bowles to a
five-year prison term pursuant to his plea agreement. Less than one month later,
the trial court entered an agreed order placing Bowles on shock probation. This
appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
Pretrial diversion in Kentucky is governed by RCr6 8.04 and KRS
533.250 et seq. A trial court’s decisions regarding pretrial diversion are reviewed
using the same criteria as decisions to revoke probation. Richardson v.
6 Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure.
-4- Commonwealth, 494 S.W.3d 495, 498 (Ky. App. 2015). “A decision to revoke
probation is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Andrews, 448
S.W.3d 773, 780 (Ky. 2014) (citation omitted). “Under our abuse of discretion
standard of review, we will disturb a ruling only upon finding that ‘the trial judge’s
decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal
principles.’” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky.
1999)).
The discretion afforded to the trial court to revoke probation or
diversion, however, must be exercised “consistent with statutory criteria.” New v.
Commonwealth, 598 S.W.3d 88, 90 (Ky. App. 2019) (quoting Andrews, 448
S.W.3d at 780). “Specifically, before revoking probation a trial court must make
two findings under [KRS] 439.3106(1): (1) whether the alleged probation violation
‘constitutes a significant risk to prior victims of the supervised individual or the
community at large’ and (2) whether the defendant ‘cannot be appropriately
managed in the community[.]’” Id. A trial court is required to make these
findings, and they must be “supported by the evidence of record[,]” but the trial
court is not required to provide any explanation for them. McClure v.
Commonwealth, 457 S.W.3d 728, 733 (Ky. App. 2015).
In his sole argument on appeal, Bowles contends the trial court abused
its discretion when it voided his diversion. Specifically, Bowles contends that the
-5- trial court erred in finding that he could not be supervised while on diversion
because he had not yet been subject to supervision. Instead of proceeding directly
to revocation, Bowles argues that the trial court should have imposed a lesser
sanction that included supervision. Bowles also complains that “[t]he lack of
analysis by the Monroe Circuit Court raises the specter of a zero-tolerance policy”
which met with our disapproval in Helms v. Commonwealth, 475 S.W.3d 637 (Ky.
App. 2015). (Appellant’s Brief at 6.)
We do not agree with Bowles’s argument. First, a trial court is not
required to provide a lesser sanction before revocation. “KRS 439.3106 permits,
but does not require, a trial court to employ lesser sanctions[.]” McClure, 457
S.W.3d at 732. Next, the trial court’s order revoking Bowles’s diversion
specifically found that Bowles “poses a risk to public safety and is not amenable to
community supervision.” (Record (R.) at 76.) These are the findings required by
KRS 439.3106; an explanation is not required. Id. at 733. Unlike in Helms, where
we specifically disapproved of a trial court’s zero-tolerance provision, see Helms,
475 S.W.3d at 643-44, the trial court in this case did not invoke a similar blanket
rule. Instead, it considered Bowles’s case on its own merits before electing to
revoke his diversion.
Finally, Bowles contends that even though his assault conviction is
admittedly serious, the record does not support the finding that he cannot be
-6- managed in the community. We disagree. The record shows that, despite
receiving a very generous plea and accommodations from both the trial court and
the Commonwealth, Bowles failed to inform the trial court when he returned to
Kentucky and therefore should have been under supervision when he assaulted his
girlfriend. In other words, he apparently disregarded one of the few restrictions the
trial court gave him when it allowed him to relocate to Tennessee. While the trial
court was permitted to meet this flouting of its conditions with a lesser sanction
than revocation, it was in no way required to do so. We note also that Bowles
continued to benefit from the trial court’s concern for his well-being when it
granted shock probation within a month of his sentencing. We discern no abuse of
discretion in the trial court’s handling of this case.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Monroe Circuit Court’s
judgment.
ALL CONCUR.
-7- BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Aaron Reed Baker Russell Coleman Frankfort, Kentucky Attorney General of Kentucky
James Havey Assistant Solicitor General Frankfort, Kentucky
-8-