Background
Jacob Bowles was arrested following a single-vehicle accident on January 24, 2022, in Monroe County, Kentucky, during which police discovered over five pounds of marijuana in his vehicle. Bowles was indicted on four counts: operating a motor vehicle with an expired license, possession of an open container of alcohol, driving too fast for traffic conditions, and trafficking in marijuana (first offense). In May 2022, the Commonwealth offered a plea agreement reducing the trafficking charge to a Class D felony in exchange for Bowles’s guilty plea and acceptance of a five-year sentence, to be diverted for five years. Bowles accepted the offer and was placed on supervised diversion.
Bowles requested transfer of his supervision to Tennessee to live with his mother, but Tennessee denied the transfer due to the instability of his mother’s living situation. The trial court subsequently agreed to unsupervised diversion while Bowles remained in Tennessee, with the explicit condition that supervision would be reinstated if he returned to Kentucky. Between September 2022 and May 2025, Bowles returned to Kentucky without notifying the trial court or probation authorities.
On May 20, 2025, while living in Glasgow, Kentucky, Bowles assaulted his girlfriend, Jayeda Perdue, by slapping and punching her twice during a dispute over her cell phone. The assault resulted in visible injuries, including facial swelling and a split lip. Bowles fled the scene and was subsequently arrested. He pleaded guilty to fourth-degree assault in Barren District Court. The Commonwealth moved to revoke his diversion and impose the five-year prison sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s revocation of Bowles’s pretrial diversion and imposition of the five-year sentence. The court held that trial courts are not required to impose lesser sanctions before revoking diversion or probation. Under KRS 439.3106, lesser sanctions are permissible but not mandatory. The trial court’s order met statutory requirements by finding that Bowles “poses a risk to public safety and is not amenable to community supervision,” and no written explanation for these findings is legally required.
The court rejected Bowles’s argument that the trial court failed to properly consider his case on its own merits, distinguishing this case from Helms v. Commonwealth, where a blanket zero-tolerance policy had been improper. Here, the trial court specifically considered Bowles’s circumstances and exercised discretion in deciding revocation was appropriate. The court found substantial record support for the revocation: Bowles had returned to Kentucky in violation of his diversion conditions and failed to notify authorities, yet subsequently committed a serious violent offense against his girlfriend while presumably subject to the supervision that should have been in place.
The appellate court noted that while the trial court might have imposed a lesser sanction, it was under no obligation to do so. The court observed that Bowles nonetheless benefited from the trial court’s continued concern for his welfare when shock probation was granted within a month of sentencing, demonstrating the trial court’s consideration of his interests even while enforcing the conditions of his diversion agreement.
Key Takeaways
- Trial courts may revoke pretrial diversion or probation without first attempting lesser sanctions; KRS 439.3106 permits but does not require such intermediate steps.
- Statutory findings for revocation (risk to public safety and inability to manage in the community) require no written explanation; the court need only make the findings on the record.
- Violation of diversion conditions—such as failing to notify the court of a change in residence status—combined with a serious new offense provides adequate grounds for revocation even without a written rationale.
- Courts must make discretionary decisions on an individualized, case-by-case basis rather than applying blanket policies, but individualized consideration does not preclude revocation.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the scope of trial court discretion in revoking pretrial diversion agreements and resolves uncertainty about procedural requirements. By holding that lesser sanctions are optional rather than mandatory prerequisites to revocation, the court provides trial judges with flexibility in enforcing diversion conditions while maintaining constitutional due process through the requirement that findings be grounded in evidence. The ruling confirms that courts need not provide detailed written explanations for their findings, streamlining the revocation process and reducing appellate second-guessing of discretionary judicial decisions.
For criminal defense practitioners, the decision underscores that violation of diversion conditions—particularly failure to maintain required supervision or relocate status—may trigger revocation even absent a serious new criminal charge. Bowles’s case illustrates that trial courts will enforce the terms of diversion agreements and that defendants who benefit from prosecutorial leniency and judicial accommodation must scrupulously comply with those terms or risk losing deferred sentencing benefits.