(1) A pretrial diversion program shall be operated in each judicial circuit. The chief
judge of each judicial circuit, in cooperation with the Commonwealth's attorney,
shall submit a plan for the pretrial diversion program to the Supreme Court for
approval on or before December 1, 1999. The pretrial diversion program shall
contain the following elements:
(a) The program may be utilized for a person charged with a Class D felony
offense who has not, within ten (10) years immediately preceding the
commission of this offense, been convicted of a felony under the laws of this
state, another state, or of the United States, or has not been on probation or
parole or who has not been released from the service of any felony sentence
within ten (10) years immediately preceding the commission of the offense;
(b) The program shall not be utilized for persons charged with offenses for which
probation, parole, or conditional discharge is prohibited under KRS 532.045;
(c) No person shall be eligible for pretrial diversion more than once in a five (5)
year period;
(d) No person shall be eligible for pretrial diversion who has committed a sex
crime as defined in KRS 17.500. A person who is on pretrial diversion on July
12, 2006, may remain on pretrial diversion if the person continues to meet the
requirements of the pretrial diversion and the registration requirements of
KRS 17.510;
(e) Any person charged with an offense not specified as precluding a person from
pretrial diversion under paragraph (b) of this subsection may apply in writing
to the trial court and the Commonwealth's attorney for entry into a pretrial
diversion program;
(f) Any person shall be required to enter an Alford plea or a plea of guilty as a
condition of pretrial diversion;
(g) The provisions of KRS 533.251 shall be observed; and
(h) The program may include as a component referral to the intensive secured
substance abuse treatment program developed under KRS 196.285 for persons
charged with a felony offense under KRS Chapter 218A and persons charged
with a felony offense whose record indicates a history of recent and relevant
substance abuse who have not previously been referred to the program under
KRS 533.251.
(2) Upon the request of the Commonwealth's attorney, a court ordering pretrial
diversion may order the person to:
(a) Participate in a global positioning monitoring system program through the use
of a county-operated program pursuant to KRS 67.372 and 67.374 for all or
part of the time during which a pretrial diversion agreement is in effect; or
(b) Use and pay all costs, including administrative and operating costs, associated
with the alcohol monitoring device as defined in KRS 431.068. If the court
determines that the defendant is indigent, and a person, county, or other
organization has not agreed to pay the costs for the defendant in an attempt to
reduce incarceration expenses and increase public safety, the court shall
consider other conditions of pretrial diversion.
(3) A court ordering global positioning monitoring system for a person pursuant to this
section shall:
(a) Require the person to pay all or a part of the monitoring costs based upon the
sliding scale determined by the Supreme Court of Kentucky pursuant to KRS
403.761 or 456.100 and administrative costs for participating in the system;
(b) Provide the monitoring system with a written or electronic copy of the
conditions of release; and
(c) Provide the monitoring system with a contact at the office of the
Commonwealth's attorney for reporting violations of the monitoring order.
(4) A person, county, or other organization may voluntarily agree to pay all or a portion
of a person's monitoring costs specified in subsection (3) of this section.
(5) The court shall not order a person to participate in a global positioning monitoring
system program unless the person agrees to the monitoring in open court or the
court determines that public safety and the nature of the person's crime require the
use of a global positioning monitoring system program.
(6) The Commonwealth's attorney shall make a recommendation upon each application
for pretrial diversion to the Circuit Judge in the court in which the case would be
tried. The court may approve or disapprove the diversion.
(7) The court shall assess a diversion supervision fee of a sufficient amount to defray
all or part of the cost of participating in the diversion program. Unless the fee is
waived by the court in the case of indigency, the fee shall be assessed against each
person placed in the diversion program. The fee may be based upon ability to pay.
Effective: January 1, 2016
History: Amended 2015 Ky. Acts ch. 102, sec. 49, effective January 1, 2016. --
Amended 2014 Ky. Acts ch. 141, sec. 4, effective July 15, 2014. -- Amended 2010
Ky. Acts ch. 170, sec. 14, effective July 15, 2010. -- Amended 2009 Ky. Acts ch. 96,
sec. 5, effective March 24, 2009. -- Amended 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 182, sec. 49,
effective July 12, 2006. -- Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 606, sec. 86, effective July 15,
1998.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
35
cases (
11 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case:
Flynt v. Commonwealth, 105 S.W.3d 415 (Ky. 2003).
Flynt v. Commonwealth, 105 S.W.3d 415 (Ky. 2003).
· cites it 26× “KRS 533.250 outlines the eligibility requirements and required features of all such programs: (1) A pretrial diversion program shall be operated in each judicial circuit.”
Hoskins v. Maricle, 150 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2004).
· cites it 2× “' Although it is beyond dispute that the executive branch's prosecutorial function includes `the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury,' it is argued in favor of Appellee Elliott's interpretation of KRS 533.250(2) that, after…”
Keeling v. Commonwealth, 381 S.W.3d 248 (Ky. 2012).
· cites it 2× “At issue in that case was the interpretation of KRS 533.250(2), which specifically grants the trial court the authority to order pretrial diversion “[ujpon the request of the Commonwealth’s attorney.”
Commonwealth v. Derringer, 386 S.W.3d 123 (Ky. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Because Derringer was charged with being a PFO 2, we frame the question in the context of a PFO 2 charge. But the same analysis applies when determining whether a defendant can be charged with being a first-degree PFO.”
Gibson v. Commonwealth, 291 S.W.3d 686 (Ky. 2009).
· cites it 2× “" In holding that the prosecuting attorney's consent was required, we said: [t]o interpret KRS 533.250(2) as permitting a trial court to approve pretrial diversion applications over the Commonwealth's objection and thus conferring upon circuit courts the discretionary…”
Tucker v. Commonwealth, 295 S.W.3d 455 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 3× “KRS 533.250(1) imposes limitations governing which defendants are eligible to seek pretrial diversion.”
State v. Gnewuch, 316 Neb. 47 (Neb. 2024).
“61 See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 533.250 (6) (LexisNexis 2014).”
Williams v. Commonwealth, 354 S.W.3d 158 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “KRS 533.250; KRS 533.250(l)(f); KRS 533.256.”
Jones v. Commonwealth, 413 S.W.3d 306 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 4× “The issue in Flynt was whether KRS 533.250, the pretrial diversion statute, requires the consent of the Commonwealth before entry into pretrial diversion or if a circuit court judge could intervene.”
Peeler v. Commonwealth, 275 S.W.3d 223 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “The Supreme Court of Kentucky considered the relationship of the trial court and the prosecutor in the pretrial diversion process in Flynt v.”
Prather v. Commonwealth, 301 S.W.3d 20 (Ky. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Citing Thomas , this Court noted, however, that “some disqualifications associated with a felony conviction are triggered by the guilty plea that KRS 533.250(l)(e) requires as a condition of pretrial diversion.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 533.250(1) — 2 cases
Flynt v. Commonwealth, 105 S.W.3d 415 (Ky. 2003).
“KRS 533.250 outlines the eligibility requirements and required features of all such programs: (1) A pretrial diversion program shall be operated in each judicial circuit.”
Tucker v. Commonwealth, 295 S.W.3d 455 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009).
“KRS 533.250(1) imposes limitations governing which defendants are eligible to seek pretrial diversion.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 533.250(1)(d) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 533.250(1)(e) — 1 case
Flynt v. Commonwealth, 105 S.W.3d 415 (Ky. 2003).
“KRS 533.250 outlines the eligibility requirements and required features of all such programs: (1) A pretrial diversion program shall be operated in each judicial circuit.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 533.250(1)(f) — 3 cases
Commonwealth v. Derringer, 386 S.W.3d 123 (Ky. 2012).
“Because Derringer was charged with being a PFO 2, we frame the question in the context of a PFO 2 charge. But the same analysis applies when determining whether a defendant can be charged with being a first-degree PFO.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 533.250(2) — 4 cases
Flynt v. Commonwealth, 105 S.W.3d 415 (Ky. 2003).
“KRS 533.250 outlines the eligibility requirements and required features of all such programs: (1) A pretrial diversion program shall be operated in each judicial circuit.”
Hoskins v. Maricle, 150 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2004).
“' Although it is beyond dispute that the executive branch's prosecutorial function includes `the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury,' it is argued in favor of Appellee Elliott's interpretation of KRS 533.250(2) that, after…”
Keeling v. Commonwealth, 381 S.W.3d 248 (Ky. 2012).
“At issue in that case was the interpretation of KRS 533.250(2), which specifically grants the trial court the authority to order pretrial diversion “[ujpon the request of the Commonwealth’s attorney.”
Gibson v. Commonwealth, 291 S.W.3d 686 (Ky. 2009).
“" In holding that the prosecuting attorney's consent was required, we said: [t]o interpret KRS 533.250(2) as permitting a trial court to approve pretrial diversion applications over the Commonwealth's objection and thus conferring upon circuit courts the discretionary…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 533.250(2)(a) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 533.250(3) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 533.250(6) — 2 cases
Jones v. Commonwealth, 413 S.W.3d 306 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012).
“The issue in Flynt was whether KRS 533.250, the pretrial diversion statute, requires the consent of the Commonwealth before entry into pretrial diversion or if a circuit court judge could intervene.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 533.250(l)(a) — 1 case
Tucker v. Commonwealth, 295 S.W.3d 455 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009).
“KRS 533.250(1) imposes limitations governing which defendants are eligible to seek pretrial diversion.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 533.250(l)(e) — 5 cases
Flynt v. Commonwealth, 105 S.W.3d 415 (Ky. 2003).
“KRS 533.250 outlines the eligibility requirements and required features of all such programs: (1) A pretrial diversion program shall be operated in each judicial circuit.”
Tucker v. Commonwealth, 295 S.W.3d 455 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009).
“KRS 533.250(1) imposes limitations governing which defendants are eligible to seek pretrial diversion.”
Prather v. Commonwealth, 301 S.W.3d 20 (Ky. 2009).
“Citing Thomas , this Court noted, however, that “some disqualifications associated with a felony conviction are triggered by the guilty plea that KRS 533.250(l)(e) requires as a condition of pretrial diversion.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 533.250(l)(f) — 2 cases
Prather v. Commonwealth, 301 S.W.3d 20 (Ky. 2009).
“Citing Thomas , this Court noted, however, that “some disqualifications associated with a felony conviction are triggered by the guilty plea that KRS 533.250(l)(e) requires as a condition of pretrial diversion.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 533.250(l)(h) — 2 cases
Jones v. Commonwealth, 413 S.W.3d 306 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012).
“The issue in Flynt was whether KRS 533.250, the pretrial diversion statute, requires the consent of the Commonwealth before entry into pretrial diversion or if a circuit court judge could intervene.”
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.