Megan Jones v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
This text of Megan Jones v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Megan Jones v. Commonwealth of Kentucky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
RENDERED: NOVEMBER 19, 2021; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
NO. 2020-CA-0651-MR
MEGAN JONES APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM BOYLE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE DARREN W. PECKLER, JUDGE ACTION NO. 17-CR-00389
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
OPINION AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: GOODWINE, TAYLOR, AND K. THOMPSON, JUDGES.
TAYLOR, JUDGE: Megan Jones brings this appeal from an April 17, 2020, Order
of the Boyle Circuit Court revoking her probation and imposing a five-year
sentence of imprisonment. We affirm.
By order entered April 13, 2018, Jones pleaded guilty to one count of
trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree and was placed on pretrial
diversion for a period of five years. On October 29, 2018, the Commonwealth filed a motion to void Jones’s pretrial diversion. A hearing was conducted where
evidence was presented that Jones had left two drug rehabilitation facilities and
had admitted to using methamphetamine, suboxone, and marijuana. The circuit
court indicated that Jones’s struggle with mental health issues likely contributed to
her leaving the drug treatment programs. The court ultimately denied the
Commonwealth’s motion to void Jones’s pretrial diversion by order entered
February 18, 2019.
On June 24, 2019, the Commonwealth filed a second motion to void
Jones’s pretrial diversion. The Commonwealth claimed, inter alia, that Jones had
repeatedly used controlled substances, had failed to pay her supervision fees, failed
to complete community service, failed to report to her probation officer, and failed
to complete treatment programs at drug rehabilitation facilities. Following a
hearing, an order was entered on October 4, 2019, voiding Jones’s pretrial
diversion. By judgment and sentence of imprisonment also entered on October 4,
2019, Jones was sentenced to five-years’ imprisonment. Jones was released from
custody and placed on probation by order entered October 7, 2019. The October 7,
2019, order specifically provided that “[f]ailure to complete the [drug] treatment
program will be a violation of her probation.” October 7, 2019, Order.
On January 27, 2020, Jones’s probation officer filed an affidavit
setting forth the conditions of Jones’s probation that she had violated. More
-2- specifically, the affiant averred that Jones had left two additional drug treatment
facilities and failed to report to her probation officer. Affiant requested that the
circuit court revoke Jones’s probation. Following a hearing, an Order was entered
on April 17, 2020, revoking Jones’s probation. Therein, the circuit court found
that Jones had a long history of violating the terms of her pretrial diversion and her
probation, including leaving multiple drug rehabilitation treatment facilities, using
illegal substances on numerous occasions, failing to seek a substance abuse
evaluation, and failing to report to her probation officer. In its April 17, 2020,
Order, the circuit court ultimately determined that Jones could not be appropriately
managed in the community and that her continued use of illegal substances
presented a significant risk to the community at large. Consequently, the circuit
court revoked Jones’s probation and imposed the five-year sentence of
imprisonment. This appeal follows.
Jones contends the circuit court erred by revoking her probation and
sentencing her to five-years’ imprisonment. Jones argues that the circuit court
improperly determined she was a danger to the community at large and that she
could not be appropriately managed in the community. And, Jones asserts the
circuit court abused its discretion by revoking her probation and sentencing her to
five-years’ imprisonment.
-3- Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 439.3106 sets forth the criteria for
probation revocation and the sanctions supervised individuals are subject to upon
violating the terms of probation. KRS 439.3106(1) provides as follows:
(1) Supervised individuals shall be subject to:
(a) Violation revocation proceedings and possible incarceration for failure to comply with the conditions of supervision when such failure constitutes a significant risk to prior victims of the supervised individual or the community at large, and cannot be appropriately managed in the community; or
(b) Sanctions other than revocation and incarceration as appropriate to the severity of the violation behavior, the risk of future criminal behavior by the offender, and the need for, and availability of, interventions which may assist the offender to remain compliant and crime-free in the community.
In Commonwealth v. Andrews, 448 S.W.3d 773, 777-78 (Ky. 2014), the Kentucky
Supreme Court held that KRS 439.3106(1) requires a circuit court to find that (a) a
probationer’s failure to comply with terms of probation constituted a significant
risk to prior victims or the community at large, and (b) a probationer could not be
appropriately managed in the community. These findings by the circuit court are
“conditions precedent” to probation revocation pursuant to KRS 439.3106(1), and
substantial evidence must support these findings. Andrews, 448 S.W.3d at 777; see
also Hall v. Commonwealth, 566 S.W.3d 578, 581 (Ky. App. 2018). A circuit
-4- court’s decision to revoke probation is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
Andrews, 448 S.W.3d at 780. An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court’s
“decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal
principles.” Id. (citation omitted).
In this case, the circuit court found that Jones’s “repeated violations
are evidence that she cannot be appropriately managed in the community. Her
ongoing use of illegal substances throughout this case, presents a significant risk to
the community at large.” April 17, 2020, Order at 2. These findings were
supported by evidence of a probative value. It was uncontroverted that Jones
failed to complete treatment at four drug rehabilitation treatment facilities, used
illegal substances on numerous occasions, failed to obtain a substance abuse
evaluation, and did not report to her probation officer on several occasions. The
court noted that it previously issued other less severe sanctions, but Jones
repeatedly failed to comply with the terms of her pretrial diversion and her
probation. The court further noted that it had exhausted all other available
remedies. Thus, the circuit court made the requisite findings required by KRS
439.3106, and such findings were supported by substantial evidence. As the circuit
court’s decision was not arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound
legal principles, we simply do not believe the court abused its discretion by
revoking Jones’s probation and sentencing her to five-years’ incarceration.
-5- For the foregoing reasons, the Order of the Boyle Circuit Court is
affirmed.
GOODWINE, JUDGE, CONCURS.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Megan Jones v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/megan-jones-v-commonwealth-of-kentucky-kyctapp-2021.