Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 533.050 (2026)

Arrest of defendant on probation or conditional discharge -- Notice and

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

hearing -- Exception under KRS 439.3108. (1) At any time before the discharge of the defendant or the termination of the sentence of probation or conditional discharge: (a) The court may summon the defendant to appear before it or may issue a warrant for his arrest upon a finding of probable cause to believe that he has failed to comply with a condition of the sentence; or (b) A probation officer, or peace officer acting at the direction of a probation officer, who sees the defendant violate the terms of his probation or conditional discharge may arrest the defendant without a warrant. (2) Except as provided in KRS 439.3108, the court may not revoke or modify the conditions of a sentence of probation or conditional discharge except after a hearing with defendant represented by counsel and following a written notice of the grounds for revocation or modification. Effective: June 8, 2011 History: Amended 2011 Ky. Acts ch. 2, sec. 85, effective June 8, 2011. -- Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 289, effective January 1, 1975.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 31 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Goff, 472 S.W.3d 181 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Goff, 472 S.W.3d 181 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 23× “not explicitly assign such a role in enacting KRS 533.050. The specific question posed by the Commonwealth’s Attorney is whether it may participate in a court-initiated probation hearing only if invited to do so by the -.”

Commonwealth v. Tapp, 497 S.W.3d 239 (Ky. 2016). · cites it 3× “020(4) together with KRS 533.050(2) and concluded that it could not extend the period of Tapp’s probation without a hearing.”

Commonwealth v. Love, 334 S.W.3d 92 (Ky. 2011). · cites it 2× “The Commonwealth had knowledge of the cause for revocation by at least the date the detainer was lodged against Love; yet, Love's probation was not revoked until approximately twenty-months later.”

Barker v. Commonwealth, 379 S.W.3d 116 (Ky. 2012). · cites it 2× “KRS 533.050 provides, in pertinent part, that “the court may not revoke or modify the conditions of a sentence of probation .”

Rasdon v. Commonwealth, 701 S.W.2d 716 (Ky. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “We find that to be a violation of KRS 533.050, and we reverse the revocation.”

Miller v. Commonwealth, 329 S.W.3d 358 (Ky. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “2d 656 (1973), and KRS 533.050(2). The Commonwealth counters that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in revoking Miller’s probation and that the court’s findings were sufficient pursuant to Commonwealth v.”

Commonwealth v. Nicely, 326 S.W.3d 441 (Ky. 2010). · cites it 4× “KRS 533.050. That statute more specifically states: "The court may not revoke or modify the conditions of a sentence of probation or conditional discharge except after a hearing with defendant represented by counsel and following a written notice of the grounds for revocation or…”

Hunt v. Commonwealth, 326 S.W.3d 437 (Ky. 2010). “KRS 533.050(2). In addition, due process requires that a probationer be given time to prepare and to obtain evidence.”

Sutherland v. Commonwealth, 910 S.W.2d 235 (Ky. 1995). · cites it 2× “KRS 533.050(2). In addition, we take note of the Commentary to KRS 533.”

Gamble v. Commonwealth, 293 S.W.3d 406 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009). “KRS 533.050(2) provides that “[t]he court may not revoke or modify the conditions of a sentence of probation or conditional discharge except after a hearing with defendant represented by counsel and following a written notice of the grounds for revocation or modification.”

Commonwealth v. Gaddie, 239 S.W.3d 59 (Ky. 2007). “020(1) and KRS 533.050(2), it did. We reject this contention, however, because a term of imprisonment shall be fixed; 7 and a term of imprisonment is not a term or condition of a sentence of probation sub *63 ject to modification.”

Murphy v. Commonwealth, 551 S.W.2d 838 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977). “09 (1974) and KRS 533.050 formerly KRS 439.430(1). There is no doubt that appellant was not served with notice that a hearing would be held for the purpose of determining whether there was probable cause to believe that he had violated his terms of probation with specificity and…”

Show all 31 citing cases →

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 533.050(1)(a) — 2 cases

Alicia Thomas v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2026).

Natalie Plumlee v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Russell Coleman Attorney Gen. (Ky. Ct. App. 2026).

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 533.050(2) — 22 cases

Commonwealth v. Tapp, 497 S.W.3d 239 (Ky. 2016). “020(4) together with KRS 533.050(2) and concluded that it could not extend the period of Tapp’s probation without a hearing.”

Commonwealth v. Love, 334 S.W.3d 92 (Ky. 2011). “The Commonwealth had knowledge of the cause for revocation by at least the date the detainer was lodged against Love; yet, Love's probation was not revoked until approximately twenty-months later.”

Miller v. Commonwealth, 329 S.W.3d 358 (Ky. Ct. App. 2010). “2d 656 (1973), and KRS 533.050(2). The Commonwealth counters that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in revoking Miller’s probation and that the court’s findings were sufficient pursuant to Commonwealth v.”

Commonwealth v. Goff, 472 S.W.3d 181 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015). “not explicitly assign such a role in enacting KRS 533.050. The specific question posed by the Commonwealth’s Attorney is whether it may participate in a court-initiated probation hearing only if invited to do so by the -.”

Rasdon v. Commonwealth, 701 S.W.2d 716 (Ky. Ct. App. 1986). “We find that to be a violation of KRS 533.050, and we reverse the revocation.”

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 533.050(l)(a) — 2 cases

Sutherland v. Commonwealth, 910 S.W.2d 235 (Ky. 1995). “KRS 533.050(2). In addition, we take note of the Commentary to KRS 533.”

Hawley v. Commonwealth, 908 S.W.2d 130 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995).

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.