COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY V. TOMMY LOPEZ
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MODIFIED: SEPTEMBER 17, 2009
RENDERED : AUGUST 27, 2009
ZQ F-EU
,,7Uyrmtr Courf of
2008-SC-000308-DG
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS
CASE NO . 2006-CA-002461-MR
HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT NO. 02-CR-00497
V.
TOMMY LOPEZ
APPELLEE
OPINION OF THE COURT BY CHIEF JUSTICE MINTON
REVERSING
I. INTRODUCTION.
While serving in the United States Army in Iraq, the Army charged
Tommy Lopez with violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) by
viewing child pornography on a computer . At that time, Lopez was also on
probation imposed by a Kentucky circuit court for the offense of criminal
attempt to commit first-degree sexual abuse . In lieu of trial by court-martial
for the child pornography charge, Lopez sought and received a voluntary
discharge from the Army. Following the voluntary discharge and his return to
Kentucky, the circuit court revoked Lopez's probation for the pornography .
charges. The main. question before us, which is a matter of first impression in
Kentucky, is whether a violation of the UCMJ is an "offense" for which a
Kentucky court may revoke probation. We hold that revocation is permissible
if the violation of military law subjects the violator to a fine or imprisonment .
II . FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY.
Following a plea agreement, the circuit court sentenced Lopez to twelve
months' incarceration for the amended misdemeanor offense of criminal
attempt to commit first-degree sexual abuse .' Instead of incarcerating Lopez,
the circuit court probated him for two years, subject to several conditions . Two
of those conditions were that Lopez "[n]ot commit another offense" and that he
"[a]void injurious or vicious habit[s] . . . ."
Near the end of that two-year period of probation, Lopez was allegedly
seen viewing child pornography on a computer while he was serving in the
Army in Iraq. The Army charged Lopez with receiving visual depictions of
minors engaging in sexually explicit acts in violation of 18 U.S.C . § 2252(a)(2)
(also a violation of UCMJ Article 134) and with violating United States Central
Command General Order No. lA (UCMJ Article 92) . In lieu of a trial by courtmartial, Lopez requested and received a discharge from the Army . In that
request for discharge, Lopez admitted that he was "guilty of one of the charges
against [him], or of a lesser included offense therein contained . . . ."
Army personnel informed a probation and parole officer in Kentucky of
Lopez's military charges . The probation and parole officer then initiated
probation revocation proceedings against Lopez. Unfortunately and
1
The victim of that offense was four years old.
inexplicably, the special supervision report filed by the probation officer is not
in the record before us. But Lopez does not contest the propriety of the
probation revocation proceedings. At the probation revocation hearing, Lopez
denied viewing child pornography but admitted to sometimes viewing adult
pornography in violation of General Order No . 1A . The circuit court revoked
Lopez's probation . The circuit court believed that Lopez's violation of the UCMJ
was a sufficient ground for revocation and that Lopez's admission of viewing
adult pornography was an injurious habit warranting revocation .
Lopez appealed the revocation ; and a split panel of the Court of Appeals
reversed the revocation, holding that "an admission to the violation of a general
order under 10 U.S.C .A . 892, Article 92, by itself, is insufficient to justify a
revocation of probation ." We granted the Commonwealth's motion for
discretionary review and, after considering the relevant facts and law, reverse
the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court's order of revocation.
III . ANALYSIS .
Probation revocation is not dependent upon a probationer's conviction of
a criminal offense.2 Instead, the Commonwealth need only prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that a probationer has violated the terms of
probation .3 So it is of no real consequence to this case that Lopez was
discharged from the Army without having first been convicted of an offense .
Tiryung v. Commonwealth , 717 S.W.2d 503, 504 (Ky.App . 1986) ("It is not
necessary that the Commonwealth obtain a conviction in order to accomplish
revocation of probation.").
Rasdon v. Commonwealth, 701 S.W.2d 716, 719 (Ky.App. 1986) .
On appeal, we may disturb a trial court's decision to revoke probation only if
that decision is an abuse of discretion .4
Kentucky law requires trial courts to condition probation upon a
defendant not committing "another offense" during the period of probation .5
Lopez denied receiving child pornography but admitted to violating United
States Central Command General Order No. 1A, paragraph 2e . 6 Since "a trial
court's decision revoking probation is not an abuse of discretion if there is
evidence to support at least one probation violation[,]" 7 we may resolve this
case by focusing only upon Lopez's admitted violation of Article 92 and need
not address whether the Commonwealth met its burden of proof on the child
pornography charge . The question in this case is whether a person serving in
the armed services who violates Article 92 of the UCMJ has committed an
"offense" that may give rise to revocation . The answer to that question is yes .
4
5
Lucas v. Commonwealth, 258 S.W.3d 806, 807 (Ky.App . 2008) .
Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 533.030(1) ("The court shall provide as an explicit
condition of every sentence to probation or conditional discharge that the
defendant not commit another offense during the period for which the sentence
remains subject to revocation .") .
Similarly, the requirement that a defendant "[a]void injurious or vicious habits" is
also set forth in KRS 533 .030(2)(a) as a condition of probation that a trial court
may, in its discretion, impose .
6
Although that order is not in the record before us, it is available to the public in
PDF form at :
http : / /www. cemml. colostate.edu /cultural/ 09476 /pdf/ GeneralOrderGO-1A .pdf.
Paragraph 2e of that order provides that the "[i]ntroduction, possession . . . or
display of any pornographic or sexually explicit photograph, video tapes, movie,
drawing, book, magazine, or similar representations" is prohibited.
Lucas , 258 S.W.3d at 807-08.
The statutory provisions governing probation are found in
KRS Chapter 533, which is part of the Kentucky Penal Code . 8 The Kentucky
Penal Code defines offense as "conduct for which a sentence to a term of
imprisonment or to a fine is provided by any law of this state or . . . by any law,
order, rule, or regulation of any governmental instrumentality authorized by
law to adopt the same . . . ."9 Since it is beyond question that Congress and
the armed forces are authorized to adopt laws and orders, we must determine
whether a term of imprisonment or a fine were possible punishments for the
violation of UCMJ Article 92 . Again, the answer to that question is yes,
meaning that revocation was permissible.
UCMJ Article 92 is codified at 10 U .S.C . § 892 . That statute provides
that a person who "violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or
regulation . . . shall be punished as a court-martial may direct." Because the
statute does not contain a range of punishment, we must look elsewhere to
determine if a person who violates that statute could be subjected to
imprisonment or a fine or both.
The Manual for Courts-Martial United States (2008 edition) (the Manual)
provides that a person who violates Article 92 (i.e., 10 U.S .C . § 892) is subject
to a maximum punishment of "confinement for 2 years ."l0 Since the term
s
KRS 500.010 provides that the Kentucky Penal Code consists of KRS Chapters 500
to 534 .
9
KRS 500.080(11) .
io The Manual for Courts-Martial is available to the public in PDF form at:
http:/ /www.army.mil/usapa/epubslpdf/mcm .pdf.
"confinement" mentioned in the Manual is a synonym of the term
"imprisonment" mentioned in KRS 500 .080(l 1), 11 we conclude that for
probation revocation purposes, someone who violates Article 92 also commits
an "offense" under Kentucky law because a violation of Article 92 subjects the
violator to up to two years' imprisonment. And since Lopez admitted to
violating Article 92, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding
that the Commonwealth had met its burden to show by a preponderance of the
evidence that Lopez had violated the terms of his probation .
Our conclusion is not altered even if we afford every benefit of the doubt
to Lopez and assume, solely for the purposes of argument, that he only actually
committed the lesser-included offense of attempting to violate Article 92 . 12 We
will indulge this assumption because Lopez only admitted in his request for
discharge to committing one of the charged offenses, or a lesser-included
offense. Regardless, the Manual provides that one guilty of attempt is, with
some exceptions not relevant to this case, "subject to the same maximum
The potential for confinement for two years for violating Article 92 is contained at
p. IV-24 of that PDF document.
Better practice would likely have been for the Commonwealth to have provided the
trial court with evidence regarding the punishment range for violating Article 92. It
did not. We may rely upon the Manual (the 2005 version of which was cited in the
Commonwealth's brief to this Court), however, because it is an official document
readily available to the public on the United States Army's website.
Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed . 2004) defines confinement as "[t]he act of
imprisoning or restraining someone ; the state of being imprisoned or
restrained . . . ."
12
See Manual for Courts-Martial, p. IV-24 (listing attempt as a lesser-included
offense) .
punishment authorized for the commission of the offense attempted . . .
."13
Revocation was authorized even if Lopez only attempted to violate United States
Central Command General Order No . 1A.
Since the members of the armed forces are subject to many more orders
and regulations than civilians, "one can certainly hypothesize instances in
which some violations of military law might not justify revocation of
probation . . .
."14
For example, members of the United States Air Force were at
one time prohibited from wearing Wi gs . 15 Our holding should not be construed
to mean that a trial court must revoke probation each time a person on
probation serving in the armed forces violates a military law. Rather, we
simply hold that under Kentucky law, a trial court may revoke probation if a
person on probation serving in the armed forces violates military law and the
possible punishment for that violation includes a fine or imprisonment . We are
confident that trial courts of this Commonwealth will exercise properly their
inherent discretion to determine when revocation is appropriate. Any rare
instances in which a trial court abuses its discretion may be corrected on
appeal.
Given the nature of Lopez's military offense in this case and the close
relationship that offense bears to the Kentucky offense for which he was placed
13
14
15
Manual, p . IV-5.
United States v. Taylor, 449 F.2d 117, 119 (9th Cir. 1971) .
See United States v. Verdi , 5 M .J . 330 (C .M.A. 1978) .
on probation, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by
revoking Lopez's probation.
Having determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by
revoking Lopez's probation for his violation of Article 92, we need not address
Lopez's interesting contention that the condition of probation under which he
was not permitted to engage in an "injurious habit" is void for vagueness .
IV. CONCLUSION .
We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the order of
the circuit court revoking Tommy Lopez's probation .
All sitting. All concur.
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Jack Conway
Attorney General of Kentucky
Heather Michelle Fryman
James Chesnut Maxson
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Criminal Appeals
Office of the Attorney General.
1024 Capital Center Drive
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Sheldon S. Mirkin
39 Public Square
Elizabethtown, Kentucky 42701
.Supran (Eaurf of ~Rtttfurkg
2008-SC-000308-DG
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLANT
ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS
NO. 2006-CA-002461
HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT NO. 02-CR-00497
V.
TOMMY LOPEZ
APPELLEE
ORDER
Appellant's motion to add Hon. James Chesnut Maxson as additional counsel, in
the above-styled action, is granted .
The Opinion of the Court rendered August 27, 2009, is modified on its face by
substitution of the attached pages 1 and 8 in lieu of pages 1 and 8 of the original
opinion . Said modification does not affect the holding of the original Opinion of the
Court.
ENTERED : September ~, 2009.
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.