359 S.W.3d 1
Ky.2011Background
- Bard was charged with murder, found guilty but mentally ill of first-degree manslaughter, and sentenced in 2002 after competency restoration.
- The written judgment stated Bard would receive presentencing custody credit to be calculated by Probation and Parole under KRS 532.120.
- Probation and Parole calculated 3,086 days of credit, including time hospitalized involuntarily before indictment.
- Six years later Corrections recalculated and reduced credit to 1,449 days, and reincarcerated Bard for the reduced amount.
- The court approved an amended time credit sheet reflecting 1,449 days; Corrections amended its records accordingly.
- Bard challenged, arguing Corrections lacked authority to correct the error; the trial court denied relief, Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Corrections could modify presentencing credit after judgment | Bard argues Corrections cannot alter the credit calculation after sentencing. | Corrections contends it can adjust custody credit post-sentencing under its authority. | Corrections lacked authority to modify credit. |
| Whether the judgment incorporated Probation and Parole's calculation by reference | Bard contends the judgment incorporated PP’s calculation, allowing corrections to modify it. | Corrections relies on the boilerplate language as incorporation of PP’s calculation. | Judgment did not incorporate PP’s calculation; corrections could not amend it. |
| Who had the statutory duty to award presentencing custody credit (pre-2011)? | Bard asserts trial court had exclusive duty to award credit via KRS 532.120(3). | Corrections argues it could adjust credit after sentence. | Trial court had the duty; Corrections could not independently modify it. |
| Effect of judicial discretion in setting credit versus clerical error | Bard claims any error was judicial and not correctable by Corrections. | Corrections treated the change as administrative correction. | The error was judicial; not subject to CR 10.10 or CR 60.02 correction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winstead v. Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 479 (Ky. 2010) (trial court bears duty to calculate jail-time credit though PP reports helpful)
- Viers v. Commonwealth, 52 S.W.3d 527 (Ky. 2001) (distinguishes judicial vs. clerical errors in judgments)
- Todd v. Commonwealth, 12 S.W.3d 695 (Ky. App. 1999) (involuntary hospitalization time not always creditable)
- Gaddie v. Commonwealth, 239 S.W.3d 59 (Ky. 2007) (habeas-like review of judgment effects; context for remedies)
- Brewer v. Commonwealth, 550 S.W.2d 474 (Ky. 1977) (PSI review and mandatory court receipt of PSI before judgment)
- Doolan v. Commonwealth, 566 S.W.2d 413 (Ky. 1978) (court must consider pre-sentencing credit awarded by statute)
- Mills v. Commonwealth, No. 2004-SC-0140-MR, 2005 WL 2317982 (Ky. Sept. 22, 2005) (Ky.) (trial court responsibility for jail-time credit under pre-2011 statute)