The Kentucky Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's decision to place Christian Dominguez on probation after he violated the terms of his felony diversion program. The ruling, which came on June 26, 2026, is significant as it clarifies the legal standards for revoking diversion agreements in Kentucky. Dominguez, who faced charges related to drug possession and terroristic threatening, argued that the court did not follow proper procedures in revoking his diversion.
This case is important not just for Dominguez, but also for others in Kentucky who may find themselves in similar situations. It outlines the legal framework surrounding diversion programs and the criteria that courts must consider when deciding whether to revoke such agreements.
Background
Christian Dominguez was charged in February 2023 after police responded to a report of him threatening to shoot people at a Waffle House in Campbell County. Officers found a loaded gun in his pocket and confirmed he was intoxicated. Additionally, he possessed oxycodone pills. Following these incidents, a grand jury indicted him on two counts: first-degree possession of a controlled substance, a felony, and third-degree terroristic threatening, a misdemeanor.
In a plea agreement, Dominguez and the Commonwealth of Kentucky reached a deal where he would participate in a two-year felony diversion program for the drug possession charge and receive a 12-month probated sentence for the terroristic threatening charge. The court accepted this agreement, allowing Dominguez to avoid immediate incarceration while completing the diversion program under the supervision of the Department of Probation and Parole.
However, in October 2024, Dominguez was arrested in Ohio for domestic violence, which led to a violation of his diversion terms. A probation officer filed an affidavit with the court, prompting the trial court to issue a warrant for his arrest. This situation escalated to a hearing where the court had to determine whether Dominguez's actions warranted termination from the diversion program.
The Ruling
The Kentucky Court of Appeals, led by Judge Acree, ruled in favor of the Commonwealth, affirming the lower court's decision to terminate Dominguez's participation in the diversion program and sentence him to probation. The court found that the trial court had sufficient grounds to conclude that Dominguez violated the conditions of his diversion.
The court ruled, "the trial court chose '[s]anctions other than revocation and incarceration' as authorized by KRS 439.3106(1)(b). The specific sanction the trial court chose was probation, not incarceration."
Dominguez argued that the trial court failed to make necessary findings required by Kentucky law, specifically KRS 439.3106(1), which outlines conditions for revocation. However, the court determined that the trial court's decision to impose probation rather than incarceration meant that the specific findings Dominguez claimed were necessary did not apply in this case.
The court noted, "the criteria of section (1)(a) are not prerequisites to revocation but to the greater sanction of incarceration."
In essence, the court clarified that the trial judge's decision to opt for probation was a valid choice under the law and did not require the findings that Dominguez argued were necessary.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving felony diversion programs in Kentucky. It clarifies that when a participant in a diversion program violates its terms, the court can impose sanctions like probation without needing to meet the higher standards required for incarceration. This distinction is crucial for defendants who may find themselves in similar situations, as it outlines the legal boundaries and options available to the courts.
Moreover, this case reinforces the importance of adhering to the conditions of diversion programs. Violating these terms can lead to serious consequences, including termination from the program and subsequent probation. The court's decision serves as a reminder of the responsibilities that come with participating in such programs.
What's Next
Dominguez has the option to appeal the ruling, but details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. There are currently no related cases pending that could impact this ruling directly. As it stands, the decision by the Kentucky Court of Appeals sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future.