NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

OPINION

STUMBO, Judge.

Donald Williams appeals from an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court revoking his probation. Williams claims the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation. We find no error and affirm.

On August 18, 2009, an indictment was filed against Williams in Jefferson Circuit Court charging him with first-degree wanton endangerment, first-degree unlawful imprisonment, intimidating a participant in the legal process, fourth-degree assault, third-degree terroristic threatening, and with being a second-degree persistent felony offender (PFO). These offenses were committed against Williams' girlfriend. These offenses were also committed while Williams was already serving a supervised diverted sentence from 2007.

Williams, through counsel, was able to negotiate a plea agreement with the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth agreed that it would recommend that the PFO charge be dismissed and that Williams receive a total sentence of two years to serve or a sentence of four years if the sentence were to be probated. On April 1, 2010, a sentencing hearing was held. At the hearing, Williams requested that the court grant him probation. The trial court did so, probating the four-year sentence for a period of five years.

On March 15, 2011, a motion to revoke Williams' probation was filed. A Special Supervision Report from the Division of Probation and Parole was included with the motion. The report indicated that Williams reported to the Probation Office on January 12, 2011, for a routine report day. His next report day was February 14, 2011. Williams did not report to that meeting, nor did he call his probation officer, Officer Derek Meeks. On March 3, 2011, Officer Meeks conducted a home visit. Officer Meeks went to Williams' last known address. Williams' grandmother answered the door and stated Williams was no longer living at the residence. An arrest warrant was later issued for Williams' arrest due to his absconding from probation supervision.

Williams was ultimately arrested on October 16, 2011. On November 18, 2011, a hearing was held on the motion to revoke probation. Officer Meeks testified at the hearing. His testimony reflected the information contained in the Special Supervision Report. Officer Meeks also testified that he made numerous phone calls to numbers previously provided by Williams, but was not successful in making contact. It was also revealed at the hearing that during the time Williams was missing, he had committed new misdemeanor offenses.2 No other testimony or evidence was presented.

Williams, through counsel, argued that his probation should not be revoked because the Commonwealth did not meet the standard for revocation. Pursuant to KRS3 439.3106, supervised individuals are subject to revocation proceedings and possible incarceration for failure to comply with the conditions of probation when such failure results in a significant risk to the prior victim or the community and when the supervised individual cannot be appropriately supervised in the community. Defense counsel argued the Commonwealth failed to provide evidence of these two requirements and that Williams should be allowed to remain on probation. The Commonwealth argued that since the case involved domestic abuse, the victim was at risk when Williams was missing. The Commonwealth also discussed Williams' new charges while missing from probation supervision. Finally, the Commonwealth also argued that the fact Williams absconded for about 8 months showed he could not be managed in the community via other methods of probation.

The trial court granted the motion to revoke Williams' probation. The court found that Williams absconded from probation for over 8 months; that he was a threat to the community because the underlying charge involved domestic violence, necessitating the court to be confident in his whereabouts and living arrangements; and that he has demonstrated he was not amenable to supervision by less oppressive measures than full revocation. This appeal followed.

Williams' argument on appeal is that the trial court failed to follow the mandates of KRS 439.3106 and erred in revoking his probation. KRS 439.3106 states:

Southwood v. Commonwealth, 372 S.W.3d 882, 884 (Ky. App. 2012) (citations omitted).

We believe that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Williams' probation. The trial court found that Williams posed a significant risk to the community because his underlying offenses were violent in nature, involved domestic violence, and Williams was under no supervision and could not be located for over 8 months.4 Further, the court was notified that Williams had committed new offenses during this time.

The court also found that Williams was not amenable to other forms of supervision other than full revocation. This is supported by the evidence presented at the revocation hearing. Williams absconded from probation after only 9 months of a 5-year probationary period, a significant probation violation. Williams did not present any mitigating evidence to excuse his absconding from probation. Williams was also already participating in a supervised diversion program when he committed the underlying violent offenses. Finally, Williams committed new offenses during the 8-month period he was missing. This evidence illustrates that Williams has no respect for the role of probation. Williams violated his previous supervised diversion when he committed the underlying domestic violence offenses and he violated his current probation when he absconded from supervision for 8 months. The underlying domestic violence offenses and the new charges acquired after having absconded from probation also demonstrate Williams' propensity toward criminal behavior.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Williams' probation and the record fully supports the findings made. The court considered the mandates set forth by KRS 439.3106 and made a reasonable decision based on the evidence presented. We therefore affirm the order of the Jefferson Circuit Court revoking Williams' probation.

KELLER, JUDGE, CONCURS.

THOMPSON, JUDGE, CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.