FRAZER (TIMOTHY) VS. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: JANUARY 15, 2010; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2008-CA-001993-MR
AND
NO. 2008-CA-001994-MR
TIMOTHY FRAZER
v.
APPELLANT
APPEALS FROM BOONE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE JAMES R. SCHRAND II, JUDGE
ACTION NOS. 06-CR-00552 AND 07-CR-00432
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CLAYTON, TAYLOR, AND WINE, JUDGES.
CLAYTON, JUDGE: These appeals from the sentencing of the appellant,
Timothy Frazer. The Boone Circuit Court found that Frazer’s sentences should run
consecutively pursuant to statute. Frazer, however, contends that they should run
concurrently. Based upon the following, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Frazer pled guilty to receiving stolen property over $300 and was
sentenced to two years which was probated for two years in December of 2006.
On April 11, 2007, Frazer’s probation officer, Cassandra Stella, filed an affidavit
with the trial court alleging he had violated the conditions of his probation. When
Frazer was arrested on May 21, 2007, for the probation violations, he gave false
information to the officers. Based upon this act, Frazer was indicted on July 17,
2007, for theft of identity of another and for being a persistent felony offender in
the second degree.
On September 19, 2007, Frazer pled guilty to the theft of identity
charge and on October 3, 2007, was sentenced to three years which was probated
for five years. While the trial court stated that the sentence would run concurrently
with Frazer’s prior sentence, he ordered the sentence to run consecutively to the
“sentence for which he is currently on probation.”
On February 22, 2008, Stella tendered another affidavit alleging
Frazer had again violated the terms and conditions of his probation. Specifically,
Stella contended that he had absconded from supervision. Frazer was arrested on
this charge on July 1, 2008, and on September 24, 2008, the court revoked his
probation. The trial court held that the sentences would run consecutively for a
total of five years. Frazer now appeals that decision, arguing that the sentences
should run concurrently.
DISCUSSION
-2-
The crux of this issue lies in which of two statutes should be applied
in this case. The trial court concluded that Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS)
533.060(2) is controlling. It provides as follows:
When a person has been convicted of a felony and
is committed to a correctional detention facility and
released on parole or has been released by the court on
probation, shock probation, or conditional discharge, and
is convicted or enters a plea of guilty to a felony
committed while on parole, probation, shock probation,
or conditional discharge, the person shall not be eligible
for probation, shock probation, or conditional discharge
and the period of confinement for that felony shall not
run concurrently with any other sentence.
Frazer argues that this is not the appropriate statute to apply in his
case. He contends that KRS 533.040(3) is the correct one. It provides that:
A sentence of probation or conditional discharge
shall run concurrently with any federal or state jail,
prison, or parole term for another offense to which the
defendant is or becomes subject during the period, unless
the sentence of probation or conditional discharge is
revoked. The revocation shall take place prior to parole
under or expiration of the sentence of imprisonment or
within ninety (90) days after the grounds for revocation
come to the attention of the Department of Corrections,
whichever occurs first.
In Brewer v. Com., 922 S.W.2d 380 (Ky. 1996), the Kentucky
Supreme Court held that KRS 533.060 controlled over KRS 533. 040 since it was
enacted later. The Brewer facts were very similar to the case at bar. In Brewer,
the defendant was on probation for a felony when he was charged and sentenced
on another felony. Brewer argued that he should have concurrent sentences based
-3-
upon KRS 533.040 since his probation was not revoked within ninety days of the
Department of Corrections becoming aware of the grounds for his revocation.
The Brewer Court specifically held KRS 533.060 was controlling
since it was enacted later and that it was “the General Assembly’s clear intention in
enacting KRS 533.060(2) to provide stiff penalties in the form of consecutive
sentences to those who, after having been awarded parole or probation, violate that
trust by the commission of subsequent felonies.” Id. at 382. (Citations omitted).
Frazer is in the same situation and we find that the trial court correctly held that
KRS 533.060(2) was the controlling statute. The trial court’s imposition of a
consecutive sentence was not in error and we affirm.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Julia K. Pearson
Frankfort, Kentucky
Jack Conway
Attorney General of Kentucky
John Paul Varo
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
-4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.