HON. A.C. MCCAY CHAUVIN, JUDGE JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MODIFIED : SEPTEMBER 11, 2009
RENDERED : JUNE 25, 2009
BE PUBLISHED
'Suprrmt (~Vurf
of I
2008-SC-000429-M
o9 Kt_4_
APPELLANT
DAYRON CASTELLANOS HIDALGO,
A/K/A DAYRON CASTELLANOS,
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
V.
___D.C,.
ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
NO. 2008-CA-000640-OA
JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT NO. 07-CR-002194
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, ET AL
APPELLEES
AND
2008-SC-000518-MR
HON. A.C . MCCAY CHAUVIN, JUDGE
JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
V.
CROSS-APPELLANT
ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
NO . 2008-CA-000640-OA
JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT NO . 07-CR-002194
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, ET AL
CROSS-APPELLEES
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE CUNNINGHAM
AFFIRMING
On June 22, 2007, Appellant, Dayron Castellanos Hidalgo, a/k/a Dayron
Castellanos, and a co-defendant robbed a Cash Express business using a BB
gun . Appellant was subsequently indicted on one count of robbery in the first
degree . During plea negotiations, the Commonwealth offered to amend the
charge to robbery in the second degree if Appellant would refrain from seeking
probation or shock probation . At sentencing on January 7, 2008, Appellant
supplemented the pre-sentence investigative report with statements regarding
his good character, even though he was not technically asking for probation .
The Commonwealth objected and the Jefferson Circuit Court denied probation .
However, the court stated that it would consider shock probation if it had
authority to do so sua sponte . The court set a status/ scheduling hearing in
sixty days, at which time it would let the parties know if shock probation would
be considered and, if so, the date of the shock probation hearing. The
Commonwealth objected and moved to set aside the plea and take the case to
trial.
At the March 10, 2008 status hearing, the circuit court, on its own
motion, scheduled a shock probation hearing for April 23, 2008. The
Commonwealth objected and sought a writ of prohibition from the Court of
Appeals. The Court of Appeals granted the writ on the basis that the trial court
was acting outside its jurisdiction . Appellant then appealed that decision to
this Court, and the Hon . A .C. McCay Chauvin filed a cross-appeal .
The sole issue on appeal is the authority of the circuit court to sua
sponte
conduct a hearing on shock probation . For the following reasons, we
affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals .
The Court of Appeals has broad discretion in the issuance of writs of
prohibition, and each case must be considered on its own merits . Chamblee v .
Rose, 249 S.W.2d 775, 776 (Ky. 1952) . Because writs interfere with the
proceedings of a trial court and the efficient dispatch of our appellate duties,
the courts of this Commonwealth have formulated a rule governing the
discretionary choice between issuing a writ and relegating a petitioner to the
right to appeal. Hoskins v. Maricle, 150 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2004) . This Court has
consistently held that a writ of prohibition is appropriate in two circumstances:
1) when the lower court is acting without or beyond its jurisdiction and there is
no adequate remedy through an application to an intermediate court; or 2)
when the lower court is acting erroneously within its jurisdiction, and there
exists no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise and great injustice and
irreparable injury would result. Id. at 10. This case is an example of the lower
court acting beyond its jurisdiction .
The proper standard of review of a decision with respect to a writ of
prohibition depends on the class of writ case. Grange Mut . Ins . Co. v. Trude,
151 S.W.3d 803, 810 (Ky. 2004) . De novo review is generally the proper
standard where the lower court is alleged to be acting outside its jurisdiction,
because jurisdiction is generally only a question of law. Id. Thus, we review
the granting of the writ de novo, giving no deference to the judgment below. Id .
"Shock probation" is purely a creature of statute. KRS 439 .265(1)
provides in relevant part:
Subject to the provisions of KRS Chapter 439 and
Chapters 500 to 534, any Circuit Court may, upon
motion of the defendant made not earlier than thirty
(30) days nor later than one hundred eighty (180) days
after the defendant has been incarcerated in a county
jail following his conviction and sentencing pending
delivery to the institution to which he has been
sentenced, or delivered to the keeper of the institution
to which he has been sentenced, suspend the further
execution of the sentence and place the defendant on
probation upon terms the court determines . Time
spent on any form of release following conviction shall
not count toward time required under this section .
(Emphasis added.)
The plain language of KRS 439 .265(1) requires the defendant to make a
motion for shock probation. Appellant's reliance on 439.265(2) is also
misplaced . KRS 439 .265(1) provides the framework for the circuit court to
acquire jurisdiction to consider shock probation . Subsection (2) of that statute
is concerned only with the defendant's right to a hearing in response to
motions "filed in accordance with subsection (1) of this section ." KRS
439 .265(2) . "This statute only establishes a trial court's jurisdiction after the
passage of 30 days imprisonment upon conviction and motion of the defendant."
Commonwealth v . Gross, 936 S .W.2d 85, 87 (Ky. 1996) (emphasis added) .
Because Appellant did not file a motion pursuant to KRS 439.265, and indeed
could not as part of his plea agreement, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to
order a hearing or consider shock probation . A writ of prohibition, therefore,
"is appropriate . . . to prevent [the] lower court from exceeding the lawful power
or authority with which it is invested or from assuming some power not
authorized by law . . . ; as for example, when the court proceeds contrary to the
dictates of a relevant statute ." Corns v. Transportation Cabinet, Dept . of
Highways, Commonwealth of Ky, 814 S .W.2d 574, 578 (Ky. 1991) .
The trial court had the option of accepting the plea agreement or
rejecting it. RCr 8 .10 . By accepting the agreement, the court cannot then
circumvent its terms by its own actions. Also, we recognize in this decision
that "shock probation" is procedurally much different than outright probation.
The latter requires no overt act by the defendant, but must be considered by
the court in all eligible cases, regardless of what the Commonwealth agrees to
recommend . KRS 533 .010(2) . The court may grant outright probation against
the recommendation of the Commonwealth's Attorney in the plea agreement.
In such a case, it neither violates the plea agreement nor is acting outside its
jurisdiction .
Based upon all of the foregoing, the order of the Court of Appeals
granting the writ of prohibition is hereby affirmed.
All sitting. All concur.
COUNSEL FOR DAYRON CASTELLANOS HIDALGO :
Paul S . Gold
701 West Jefferson Street
Louisville, KY 40202
COUNSEL FOR HON . A.C. MCCAY CHAUVIN :
Max Harding Comley
Stewart Christopher Burch
Logan 8v Gaines, PLLC
114 W. Clinton Street
Frankfort, KY 40601
COUNSEL FOR COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY :
Jeanne Deborah Anderson
Office of the Attorney General
Office of Criminal Appeals
1024 Capital Center Drive
Frankfort, KY 40601-8204
Teresa Ann Young
Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney
514 West Liberty Street
Louisville, KY 40202
..;vuyrrmr (~Vurf of ~Rrufurhv
2008-SC-000429-MR
DAYRON CASTELLANOS HIDALGO,
A/K/A DAYRON CASTELLANOS,
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
V.
APPELLANT
ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
NO. 2008-CA-000640-OA
JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT NO. 07-CR-002194
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, ET AL
APPELLEES
AND
2008-SC-000518-MR
HON . A.C . MCCAY CHAUVIN, JUDGE
JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
V.
CROSS-APPELLANT
ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
NO . 2008-CA-000640-OA
JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT NO. 07-CR-002194
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, ET AL
CROSS-APPELLEES
ORDER OF CORRECTION
On the Court's own motion, the Opinion of the Court by Justice
Cunningham, rendered June 25, 2009, is hereby modified by substituting
pages 1 and 3 of the opinion as attached hereto, in lieu of pages 1 and 3 of the
opinion as originally rendered. Said modification does not affect the holding.
Entered : September 11, 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.