The Kentucky Court of Appeals has upheld the decision of the Harlan Circuit Court to revoke James Randall Nantz’s five-year probation, sending him to serve a cumulative 12-year prison sentence. The appellate court found that the trial court correctly followed statutory requirements when it determined Nantz posed a significant risk to the community after he abandoned a mandatory rehabilitation program and absconded from supervision.
This ruling consolidates appeals stemming from eight separate criminal cases (Action Nos. 19-CR-00065 through 21-CR-00102) where Nantz had previously pleaded guilty to 25 charges, ranging from wanton endangerment and fleeing police to drug possession and theft.
The Plea Deal and Immediate Violations
In September 2023, Nantz secured a lenient agreement: a 12-year sentence that was entirely probated for five years, contingent upon him completing a minimum one-year, long-term inpatient rehabilitation program. He began treatment in January 2024.
However, Nantz’s compliance was short-lived. On June 7, 2024, he unilaterally quit the rehabilitation program against staff advice and failed to notify his Probation and Parole officer. This led to a Violation of Supervision Report being filed on June 12, 2024, citing two violations: failure to complete treatment and absconding from supervision. A bench warrant was subsequently issued for his arrest.
Nantz remained at large, allegedly fleeing to Virginia where he stayed with his mother, girlfriend, and son. During this time, he admitted to relapsing twice on the controlled medication Suboxone. He was eventually arrested in Virginia in September 2024 and extradited to Kentucky.
The Revocation Hearing and Competing Narratives
At the probation revocation hearing in November 2024, the atmosphere was complex. The Commonwealth, represented by the prosecution, indicated a willingness to offer Nantz a “second chance,” citing his cooperation in securing convictions against others in a separate murder case (the “Polly case”) and acknowledging his severe addiction issues. The Commonwealth suggested returning him to rehab.
Nantz testified, explaining his departure from treatment was driven by extreme distress. He recounted that his elderly mother, who was caring for his nine-year-old son while he was in rehab, had been admitted to the ICU with a life-threatening prognosis. After visiting her, Nantz claimed he was overwhelmed by his son’s distress and left to care for his family in Virginia, where his mother eventually recovered.
Despite Nantz’s emotional explanation and the Commonwealth’s apparent leniency, the Trial Court proceeded with the revocation. The court noted Nantz’s history, including an earlier incident where he allegedly fled from law enforcement on an ATV into the woods, though no new charges resulted from that event.
On November 18, 2024, the Harlan Circuit Court issued orders revoking Nantz’s probation in all eight cases, ordering him to begin serving the full 12-year sentence.
Appellate Court Upholds Trial Court’s Discretion
Nantz appealed the revocation, raising three main arguments: that the trial court lacked a reviewable analysis for its findings; that the evidence did not support the findings; and that the court wrongly refused to impose lesser sanctions.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the decision under an abuse of discretion standard, meaning they would only overturn the ruling if it was arbitrary or unsupported by sound legal principles.
Statutory Findings Were Sufficient
Nantz argued that the trial court needed to provide a detailed, reviewable analysis explaining *why* he posed a risk, citing older case law. The Court of Appeals firmly rejected this, citing recent binding precedent, notably *Commonwealth v. Andrews*.
The court explained that Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 439.3106(1)(a) requires two mandatory findings for revocation: (1) the failure to comply constitutes a significant risk to victims or the community, and (2) the individual cannot be appropriately managed in the community.
The appellate panel noted that the Trial Court’s orders explicitly recited these two required findings. According to the Court of Appeals, the law does not require trial judges, who manage busy dockets, to draft lengthy dissertations explaining the reasoning behind these statutory conclusions, provided the findings themselves are supported by evidence.
Evidence Supported the Findings of Risk
Nantz’s second argument—that the evidence didn’t support the findings of risk and unmanageability—was also dismissed. The court pointed to Nantz’s own admissions during the hearing: he left mandated treatment early, failed to contact supervision, left the jurisdiction, and admitted to continued drug use.
The court emphasized that Nantz’s extensive criminal background, which included multiple prior convictions for fleeing and evading, lent credibility to the Probation Officer’s testimony that Nantz fled from law enforcement again in August 2024.
The Court summarized Nantz’s actions starkly: “He abandoned treatment, absconded probation, fled from law enforcement to another state, and admittedly continued using narcotics and breaking the law.” Given this pattern, the appellate court found ample evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion that Nantz posed a significant risk and could not be managed in the community.
No Mandate for Lesser Sanctions
Finally, Nantz contended the court should have imposed sanctions other than incarceration, such as returning him to rehab, as the Commonwealth had suggested. The Court of Appeals referenced *McClure v. Commonwealth*, stating that KRS 439.3106 does not require a trial court to treat revocation as a “last resort.”
Once the court makes the two mandatory findings under subsection (1)(a), it is within its discretion whether to choose revocation or a lesser sanction under subsection (1)(b). The appellate court concluded that the Trial Court was under no obligation to grant Nantz another chance, especially given his history of serious, dangerous crimes.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeals found the Trial Court acted within its lawful discretion. Nantz forfeited the leniency he was shown through his repeated failures to comply with the law and the terms of his supervision.