Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Lonnie Allen Harris, 2024-CA-0442

Lonnie Allen Harris was convicted in Casey Circuit Court of numerous felonies, including second-degree assault and first-degree trafficking in methamphetamine, resulting in a 20-year sentence to run consecutively with a prior 13-year sentence from a different case (total 33 years).
Harris committed the new offenses while on bond and awaiting sentencing for the first case (21-CR-00023).
He filed a CR 59.05 motion asking to amend his sentence, claiming that the aggregate sentence violated the 20-year cap set out in KRS 532.110(1)(c), as interpreted by the Kentucky Supreme Court in Kimmel v. Commonwealth.
The trial court granted Harris’s motion, reducing his sentence to a total of 20 years, holding that Kimmel controlled.
The Commonwealth appealed, arguing Kimmel was factually distinguishable and statutory caps did not apply across separate cases resolved by different pleas/sentences.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, reinstating Harris’s original 20-year sentence to be served consecutively to his prior 13-year sentence.

Issue	Harris's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Does KRS 532.110(1)(c)'s sentencing cap apply to aggregate sentences imposed in separate cases where offenses are committed while on bond?	Aggregate sentence must not exceed 20 years under Kimmel precedent, irrespective of consecutive sentencing due to bond status	Kimmel only applies to single proceedings; not to sentences imposed in different cases/at different times; prior precedent (Johnson) controls	No cap applies; statutory limit does not extend to consecutive sentences from separate cases.
Applicability of Kimmel v. Commonwealth to plea-based consecutive sentences in different cases	Kimmel controls, requiring cap for all consecutive sentences even if from separate cases	Kimmel is factually distinguishable; sentences here arose from separate cases, not a joint trial or plea	Kimmel does not extend beyond joint sentences; Johnson governs.
Authority of trial courts to reduce lawfully imposed sentences based on statutory interpretation	Trial court can alter sentence to comply with statutory cap per CR 59.05	Sentence reduction not required where cap does not apply; trial court abused discretion	Trial court erred; no requirement to reduce sentence.
Consecutive sentencing for crimes committed while on bond (KRS 533.060(3))	Must operate within aggregate cap to avoid excessive punishment	Consecutive sentencing mandated by statute, cap does not override for separate convictions	Consecutive sentences proper; no statutory violation.

Kimmel v. Commonwealth, 671 S.W.3d 230 (Ky. 2023) (harmonized consecutive sentencing requirements with statutory sentencing caps, but limited to single proceedings)
Johnson v. Commonwealth, 553 S.W.3d 213 (Ky. 2018) (sentencing cap in KRS 532.110(1)(c) does not apply across separate indictments and convictions)
Cosby v. Commonwealth, 147 S.W.3d 56 (Ky. 2004) (defines "awaiting trial" to include "awaiting sentencing")