RENDERED: JULY 9, 2021; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2020-CA-0738-MR
MATTHEW BROWNING APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM OLDHAM CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE KAREN A. CONRAD, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 15-CR-00062
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE; DIXON AND MAZE, JUDGES.
CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE: Matthew Browning appeals from an Oldham Circuit
Court order revoking his probation. He argues the trial court failed to cogently link
its factual findings to the requirements of Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS)
439.3106(1), that his violation of the conditions of his probation posed a
significant risk to prior victims or members of the community at large, and that he
was unable to be appropriately managed in the community. We disagree and
consequently affirm the holding of the Oldham County Circuit Court.
On June 7, 2018, a Judgment and Sentence Plea of Guilty was entered
wherein Browning pled guilty to four counts of possession/viewing matter
portraying a sexual performance by a minor. Browning was sentenced to serve
five years, probated for five years based upon his guilty plea. The final sentencing
order listed the terms and conditions of his probation which included supervision,
reporting to his probation officer, notifying his probation officer of any changes in
address, completing a sex offender treatment plan, and registering as a sex
offender.
During the following months, Browning’s probation officers filed four
violation of supervision reports. The first report, filed on October 24, 2018, alleged
several violations including receiving pictures of a minor, being in possession of a
pornographic image of an adult woman, being in possession of a photograph
featuring a child’s Halloween costume, and having sent thirteen sexually explicit
text messages.
On October 30, 2018, the trial court entered an order reinstating
Browning’s probation and directed to him to a facility for an assessment of his
mental health. Further, the court ordered that Browning follow all
recommendations made to him following that assessment.
-2-
On March 1, 2019, a letter sent to Browning terminating him from
Kentucky Sex Offender Treatment was filed with the court. The reasons for
termination from the report included violation of the terms of Browning’s
probation. Specifically, the report cited the fact that Browning left Jefferson
County without the permission of his probation officer, and that Browning had
engaged in high-risk pre-offense behaviors.
On March 5, 2019, a second violation of supervision report was filed.
This report alleged violations of Browning’s probation, including leaving the area
of supervision without the permission of his parole officer, harassing or threatening
his parole officer, termination from sex offender treatment program, failure to
report contact with law enforcement for seventy-two hours, and for accessing
social media under the pseudonym “Mateo Brown.”
On April 25, 2019, the trial court reinstated Browning’s probation on
the conditions that he continue sex offender treatment with Kathleen Colebank and
to continue mental health counseling.
On October 11, 2019, a third violation of supervision report was filed.
This report alleged a violation of use of a volatile substance. According to the
report Browning had overdosed on a combination of Nyquil and Mucinex. There
was no trial court order for this violation because revocation was not recommended
for this violation.
-3-
On February 19, 2020, a fourth violation of supervision report was
filed. This report alleged numerous violations of Browning’s probation including
leaving the area of supervision, use of a controlled substance, possession of drug
paraphernalia, having more than one residence at a time, failure to register an
address with the Kentucky Sex Offender Registry, possession of multiple
unregistered electronic devices, and the possession of a dangerous instrument.
The officer’s report included the following information. Browning
was found at the residence of his former spouse and their child. Browning was
found sleeping in a bedroom in the residence which also held two unregistered
laptops. A search of Browning’s belongings revealed a small canister, which
Browning admitted he used to carry methamphetamine, two syringes, a flip-phone,
a smart-phone, and a recording device. Additionally, officers found a mobile
hotspot device and a flare gun in Browning’s vehicle. At the end of the report, the
officer recommended revocation of Browning’s probation.
On March 26, 2020, the Commonwealth filed a motion to revoke
probation as well as a notice of revocation hearing based on the February 19, 2020
report. Further, on April 2, 2020, a letter from Browning’s sex offender treatment
program provider was filed with the court. This letter detailed Browning’s
extensive mental health issues and concluded with the following statement
regarding the appellant.
-4-
Given his severe personality disorder, his continuous
resistance to treatment, his inability to hold employment,
and his unwillingness to address issues with any type of
medication, this individual has reached his maximum
potential for any significant progress in sex offender
treatment and is being released from treatment. This man
needs serious mental health intervention that seems to be
not available to him through the Kentucky Department of
Corrections.
When any attempt is made to focus the subject on a
specific issue that he does not wish to discuss he
becomes verbally aggressive, sarcastic, and demeaning of
the counseling process. In general, this man seems to be
deteriorating and is less amenable to intervention than he
evidenced in May/June 2019.
On April 23, 2020, the Oldham County Circuit Court held a
revocation hearing for Browning. At this hearing, Ms. Robinson testified on behalf
of Officer Popham as to the contents of the violation of supervision report.
Browning was not present at the hearing but was represented by counsel on his
behalf.
The defendant’s counsel addressed claims that the frequency of
Browning’s stays at the secondary address had not been adequately addressed.
Further, defense counsel focused on the fact that while in possession of
paraphernalia, Browning was not in possession of methamphetamine at the time of
the search.
On May 5, 2020, the trial court entered its order finding that
Browning had violated the conditions of his probation on account of his record and
-5-
the most recent violations of his probation including his departure from the area of
supervision, possession of paraphernalia, possession of electronic devices,
possession of a 12-gauge flare gun, and his termination from a second attempt at
sex offender treatment. Based on the above the court found that the
Commonwealth had carried its burden by showing that Probation and Parole had
sought Court intervention, the Court had intervened and issued orders, and that
Browning was incapable or unwilling to comply with those orders regarding
mental health and sex offender treatment. Further, the Court found that
Browning’s failure to comply with its orders constitutes a significant risk to the
community at large and that Browning could not be successfully managed in the
community. This appeal followed.
Before revoking probation, a trial court must consider KRS
439.3106(1), which provides that “[s]upervised individuals shall be subjected 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.
-6-
The Kentucky Supreme Court, in Commonwealth v. Andrews, held
that the statute “requires trial courts to consider whether a probationer’s failure to
abide by a condition of supervision constitutes a significant risk to prior victims or
the community at large, and whether the probationer cannot be managed in the
community before probation may be revoked.” 448 S.W.3d 773, 780 (Ky. 2014).
“The legislature” by requiring the trial court to make such determinations “furthers
the objectives of the graduated sanctions schema to ensure that probationers are not
being incarcerated for minor probation violations.” Id. at 779 (citation omitted).
On appeal, Browning argues that the trial court abused its discretion
when it revoked his probation. Specifically, he asserts that the trial court failed to
adequately connect the evidence to each prong of KRS 439.3106(1). Finally,
Browning argues that the evidence proffered was insufficient for the trial court to
reach the decision that it did. We disagree.
The trial court’s order is a detailed account of Browning’s history of
mental health issues and repeated violations of the conditions of his probation.
From the record, the Commonwealth sufficiently carried its burden in presenting
substantial evidence on which the trial court based its revocation order. The order
clearly linked the evidence regarding Browning’s violation of continued possession
of pornographic materials, possession of paraphernalia, and his unsanctioned
departure from the area of supervision to Browning’s inability to be managed in
-7-
the community. Additionally, the trial court’s finding that Browning was
incapable or unwilling to complete mental health treatment and that Browning’s
termination from two sex offender treatment programs is dispositive that he is a
danger to the community at large.
Browning’s argument that the trial court’s order failed to “cogently
link evidence to satisfy the necessary findings required in KRS 439.3106(1)” fails,
as even though “the statute requires a trial court to consider whether a
probationer’s failure to abide by a condition poses a significant risk to prior victims
or the community at large[,] [n]either KRS 439.3106 nor Andrews require anything
more than a finding to this effect supported by the evidence of the record.”
McClure v. Commonwealth, 457 S.W.3d 728, 733 (Ky. App. 2015) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
Because the Oldham County Circuit Court found that Browning is
unable to be managed in the community and that he poses a significant risk to the
community at large, as required under KRS 439.3106(1), its order revoking
probation is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
-8-
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Jennifer Wade Daniel Cameron
Steven J. Buck Attorney General of Kentucky
Frankfort, Kentucky
Leilani K. M. Martin
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
-9-