Paroled prisoners shall be under the supervision of the department and subject to its
direction for the duration of parole. Supervision of the parolee by the department shall
cease at the time:
(1) Of recommitment of the prisoner to prison as a parole violator, including
recommitment under a supervision continuation sanction, at which time the prisoner
shall be considered an inmate; or
(2) A final discharge from parole is granted to the parolee by the board.
Effective: June 27, 2019
History: Amended 2019 Ky. Acts ch. 137, sec. 2, effective June 27, 2019. -- Amended
1992 Ky. Acts ch. 211, sec. 109, effective July 14, 1992 -- Amended 1982 Ky. Acts
ch. 344, sec. 46, effective July 15, 1982. -- Amended 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 74, Art. V,
sec. 24(16). -- Created 1962 Ky. Acts ch. 82, sec. 4.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case:
Fryrear v. Parker, 920 S.W.2d 519 (Ky. 1996).
Fryrear v. Parker, 920 S.W.2d 519 (Ky. 1996).
“The court, however, likened a person on parole as being “detained,” because: KRS 439.348 places paroled prisoners under the supervision of the Bureau of Corrections “subject to its directions” for the duration of the parole period.”
Wingo v. Lyons, 432 S.W.2d 821 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968).
“” See also KRS 439.348, which we quote: “Paroled prisoners shall be under the supervision of the division and subject to its direction for the duration of parole.”
Walters v. Smith, 599 S.W.2d 164 (Ky. 1980).
“KRS 439.348 places paroled prisoners under the supervision of the Bureau of Corrections “subject to its direction” for the duration of the parole period.”
Laura Johns v. Kentucky Parole Bd. (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
“346; KRS 439.348. Habeas is not his remedy. Thirty or so years after the Crumbaugh cases, our highest Court reiterated this most consistent ruling that if “the [Parole B]oard should abuse its authority .”
Joseph Holland v. Just. & Pub. Saf. Cabinet (Ky. Ct. App. 2025).
“346; KRS 439.348. Habeas is not his remedy. Thirty or so years after the Crumbaugh cases, our highest Court reiterated this most consistent ruling that if “the [Parole B]oard should abuse its authority .”
Jones v. Black, 468 S.W.2d 274 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971).
“The United States District Court simply held that he should no longer be incarcerated in jail while awaiting the arrival of officers from Kentucky and ordered his release. This order had no effect upon the right of the Commonwealth of Kentucky to return him to this state for…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.