(1) If the defendant fails to complete the provisions of the pretrial diversion agreement
within the time specified, or is not making satisfactory progress toward the
completion of the provisions of the agreement, the Division of Probation and
Parole, the victim, or a peace officer may inform the attorney for the
Commonwealth of the alleged violation or noncompliance, and the attorney for the
Commonwealth may apply to the court for a hearing to determine whether or not the
pretrial diversion agreement should be voided and the court should proceed on the
defendant's plea of guilty in accordance with the law.
(2) In making a determination as to whether or not a pretrial diversion agreement
should be voided, the court shall use the same criteria as for the revocation of
probation, and the defendant shall have the same rights as he or she would if
probation revocation was sought.
(3) Making application for a pretrial diversion agreement tolls any statute of limitations
relative to the criminal offenses for which the application is made for the period
until the application is granted or denied. Approval of the application for pretrial
diversion by the court tolls any statute of limitations relative to criminal offenses
diverted for the period of the diversion agreement.
(4) If the court voids the pretrial diversion agreement, the court shall notify the
applicable prosecutor in writing that the pretrial diversion agreement has been
voided and the reasons for the action. The prosecutor shall decide whether or not to
proceed on the plea of guilty in accordance with the law.
Effective: July 15, 1998
History: Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 606, sec. 89, effective July 15, 1998.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
30
cases (
15 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case:
Richardson v. Commonwealth, 494 S.W.3d 495 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015).
Richardson v. Commonwealth, 494 S.W.3d 495 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 9× “04 and KRS 533.256 in support of its voidance of Richardson’s diversion following his violation of the conditions imposed.”
Flynt v. Commonwealth, 105 S.W.3d 415 (Ky. 2003).
· cites it 2× “” 8 If, however, the defendant does not successfully complete pretrial diversion, KRS 533.256 contemplates that the trial court will enter final judgment in accordance with the defendant’s guilty plea.”
Commonwealth v. Derringer, 386 S.W.3d 123 (Ky. 2012).
· cites it 2× “” 8 But if the defendant fails to complete the provisions of the pretrial diversion agreement, the trial court voids the agreement, and the Commonwealth decides to proceed on the guilty plea, then “KRS 533.256 contemplates that the trial court will enter final judgment in…”
Zanders v. Commonwealth, 572 S.W.3d 76 (Ky. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 5× “While Zanders asks us to reverse the trial court on the basis of principles of contract law, we believe that KRS 533.256 provides the only vehicle through which a trial court may void a pretrial diversion, essentially revoking probation.”
Helms v. Commonwealth, 475 S.W.3d 637 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015).
“]” KRS 533.256(1). Whether to void a pretrial diversion agreement for a violation of its terms is to be determined by “the same criteria as for the revocation of probation, and the defendant shall have the same rights as he or she would if probation revocation was sought.”
Tucker v. Commonwealth, 295 S.W.3d 455 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 3× “KRS 533.256 provides the converse by outlining possible consequences for one who *458 fails to satisfactorily complete the pretrial diversion.”
Commonwealth v. Lopez, 267 S.W.3d 685 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 6× “Because he failed to comply with the terms of his diversion agreement, the court was required by KRS 533.256 to sentence him in accordance with his guilty plea.”
Peeler v. Commonwealth, 275 S.W.3d 223 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 3× “” KRS 533.256(1). If the court determines that the defendant has violated the terms and *225 conditions of his pre-trial diversion agreement with the Commonwealth, the court must decide whether or not to void the agreement.”
Ballard v. Commonwealth, 320 S.W.3d 69 (Ky. 2010).
“KRS 533.256(1) governs the means by which the Commonwealth may seek to remove a defendant from pretrial diversion: If the defendant fails to complete the provisions of the pretrial diversion agreement within the time specified .”
State v. Gnewuch, 316 Neb. 47 (Neb. 2024).
“” 71 This distinction was not mentioned in either case. Moreover, in Flynt v.”
Price v. Commonwealth, 534 S.W.3d 805 (Ky. Ct. App. 2017).
“” KRS 533.256(2). “An appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision to revoke a .”
Smith v. Commonwealth, 400 S.W.3d 742 (Ky. 2013).
“the attorney for the Commonwealth may apply to the court for a hearing to determine whether or not the pretrial division agreement should be voided and the court should proceed on the defendant’s plea of guilty in accordance with the law.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 533.256(1) — 13 cases
Helms v. Commonwealth, 475 S.W.3d 637 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015).
“]” KRS 533.256(1). Whether to void a pretrial diversion agreement for a violation of its terms is to be determined by “the same criteria as for the revocation of probation, and the defendant shall have the same rights as he or she would if probation revocation was sought.”
Flynt v. Commonwealth, 105 S.W.3d 415 (Ky. 2003).
“” 8 If, however, the defendant does not successfully complete pretrial diversion, KRS 533.256 contemplates that the trial court will enter final judgment in accordance with the defendant’s guilty plea.”
Ballard v. Commonwealth, 320 S.W.3d 69 (Ky. 2010).
“KRS 533.256(1) governs the means by which the Commonwealth may seek to remove a defendant from pretrial diversion: If the defendant fails to complete the provisions of the pretrial diversion agreement within the time specified .”
Commonwealth v. Derringer, 386 S.W.3d 123 (Ky. 2012).
“” 8 But if the defendant fails to complete the provisions of the pretrial diversion agreement, the trial court voids the agreement, and the Commonwealth decides to proceed on the guilty plea, then “KRS 533.256 contemplates that the trial court will enter final judgment in…”
Tucker v. Commonwealth, 295 S.W.3d 455 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009).
“KRS 533.256 provides the converse by outlining possible consequences for one who *458 fails to satisfactorily complete the pretrial diversion.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 533.256(2) — 17 cases
Richardson v. Commonwealth, 494 S.W.3d 495 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015).
“04 and KRS 533.256 in support of its voidance of Richardson’s diversion following his violation of the conditions imposed.”
Price v. Commonwealth, 534 S.W.3d 805 (Ky. Ct. App. 2017).
“” KRS 533.256(2). “An appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision to revoke a .”
Zanders v. Commonwealth, 572 S.W.3d 76 (Ky. Ct. App. 2019).
“While Zanders asks us to reverse the trial court on the basis of principles of contract law, we believe that KRS 533.256 provides the only vehicle through which a trial court may void a pretrial diversion, essentially revoking probation.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 533.256(4) — 3 cases
Peeler v. Commonwealth, 275 S.W.3d 223 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).
“” KRS 533.256(1). If the court determines that the defendant has violated the terms and *225 conditions of his pre-trial diversion agreement with the Commonwealth, the court must decide whether or not to void the agreement.”
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.