ROY WELCH v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: February 5, 1999; 2:00 p.m.
ORDERED PUBLISHED: March 26, 1999; 10:00 a.m.
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
1997-CA-002536-MR
ROY WELCH
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE EDDIE LOVELACE, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 96-CR-000007
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
BUCKINGHAM, JOHNSON, AND KNOX, JUDGES.
KNOX, JUDGE:
Appellant, Roy Welch, appeals from an order of the
Wayne Circuit Court revoking his misdemeanor probation.
In April
1996, appellant, who had been indicted for first-degree stalking,
entered a plea of guilty to the misdemeanor charge of seconddegree stalking, pursuant to the Commonwealth’s recommendation.
Upon the Commonwealth’s recommendation, appellant was sentenced
to eight (8) months.
The trial court conditionally discharged
that sentence for a period of two (2) years, and placed appellant
on probation.
A condition of appellant’s release was that “the
defendant avoid all contact with the prosecuting witness, Cynthia
Welch, except for contact by written correspondence transmitted
through the U.S. Mail Service, relative to the care, custody and
support of their minor child.”
In July 1997, the Commonwealth moved to revoke
appellant’s probation.
During the hearing upon the
Commonwealth’s motion, the trial court heard evidence that
between July 3, 1997, and July 22, 1997, Cynthia Welch received
seventeen (17) or eighteen (18) telephone calls from appellant’s
home telephone and one (1) call from appellant’s place of
employment.
On each occasion, upon Cynthia’s picking up the
receiver, the caller hung up.
Cynthia was able to identify the
source of the calls by way of a caller identification box
attached to her telephone.
Ralph Miniard, the chief of police
for the City of Monticello, testified that he videotaped Cynthia
Welch’s caller identification box displaying appellant’s
telephone numbers.
Based upon the evidence, the trial court revoked
appellant’s probation.
In doing so, the court found that
appellant had violated the condition of his discharge prohibiting
him from having contact with Cynthia Welch.
On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court abused
its discretion in ruling that appellant had violated the nocontact terms of his probation.
Appellant maintains that since
no actual communication took place during the calls, there was no
“contact” between appellant and Cynthia Welch.
However, we
disagree.
We are mindful that “[o]ur review is limited to a
determination whether, after a hearing, the trial court abused
-2-
its discretion in revoking the appellant’s parole.”
Tiryung v.
Commonwealth, Ky. App., 717 S.W.2d 503, 504 (1986).
While no
verbal communication occurred between appellant and Cynthia
Welch, we believe the act of repeatedly causing her the
inconvenience of responding to harassing hang-up calls
constitutes “contact” within the meaning and intent of the
court’s conditional discharge order.
For that reason, we believe
the trial court acted fully within its discretion in revoking
appellant’s probation.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of
the Wayne Circuit Court.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Mark Wettle
Louisville, Kentucky
A. B. Chandler III
Attorney General
Anitria M. Franklin
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
-3-
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.
