Thomas Raider, Appellant, v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Appellee, No. 2022-CA-1070-MR (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, October 6, 2023).

Revocation of a diversion agreement is determined by the same criteria a probation revocation and the defendant has the same rights to due process as those contained in a probation revocation. Further, the Commonwealth must prove the Defendant committed a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. If the defendant faces possible termination from the program, the Commonwealth must file a motion requesting termination prior to the running of the time specified in the diversion agreement.

The Defendant was ordered to complete drug court as a condition of a diversion agreement. He subsequently absconded from the program and was terminated. However, the Commonwealth did not file a motion to terminate the agreement. After the diversion period had lapsed, the Commonwealth moved to revoke the agreement and proceed with the case. The motion was sustained by the trial court. On appeal, the U.S. District Court ruled that since the Commonwealth had not filed a motion during the period of the diversion, the diversion time continued to run and further action by the trial court was barred by the statute of limitations.

People v. Rowlett, IL App (3d) 220309 (Dec. 7, 2023).

Where defendant enters drug court post plea – predjudication, and the defendant is required to complete or be terminated from the program prior to adjudication, the state’s attorney may file its motion to terminate at any time prior to adjudication.

Defendant entered drug court pursuant to the Drug Court Program Agreement. After pleading guilty, the defendant would remain on bond, upon successful completion, the defendant would be discharged from the program and placed on probation for 24 months, which would be considered served. If the defendant were to be discharged unsuccessful, she would proceed to sentencing. The agreement advised the defendant that a warrant lasting more than 90 days for failure to appear would result in program discharge. The defendant was entered into the written Drug Court Program Agreement and was advised orally by the court of the conditions of the program. The defendant absconded in 2013 and a warrant was issued. She did not appear in court until May, 2022. In May, 2022, the State served defendant with a “Verified Petition for Termination”. The Defendant argued that the court did not have jurisdiction since the State’s motion was filed outside the diversion period. Defendant’s motion was denied and the court proceeded with the hearing., allowing defendant  an opportunity to present evidence. The court determined that defendant violated the terms of her agreement, dismissed defendant from the program, and reinstated criminal proceedings.

The length of defendant’s pending agreement was due to her outstanding warrant. Given the special nature of the drug court program and defendant’s actions to prolong her participation in the program, the State was not required to file a petition to toll the drug court program agreement for the court to maintain jurisdiction over defendant’s proceedings.

State of Washington, Respondent, v. Kristopher Suyoung Starkgraf, Appellant, No. 57240-1-II, (Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two, December 12, 2023).

Where the defendant was advised of the allegations against him, was afforded an evidentiary hearing with counsel, and the court announced the reasons for termination, the process did not violate defendant’s due process rights.