Commonwealth v. Steadman, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 468

Steadman was convicted of theft by deception and as a persistent felony offender in May 2007 and the jury recommended an eight-year term; the court stated it would order restitution and set a restitution hearing for June 8 after sentencing.
The court signed the final judgment of imprisonment on May 17 but the clerk did not enter it until May 29; a restitution hearing occurred June 8 and a restitution order was entered June 13 for $11,350 plus fee.
Steadman filed various postjudgment CR 60.02 motions alleging perjury and suppressed exculpatory evidence from a related Barren County matter; the trial court denied relief in July 2008 and again after reconsideration in October 2008.
The Court of Appeals vacated the restitution order as entered more than ten days after final judgment (finding the trial court lacked jurisdiction) and dismissed part of Steadman’s appeal as untimely because a CR 59.05 motion was filed after the 10‑day service window.
The Commonwealth sought discretionary review on the jurisdiction question; Steadman sought review on the timeliness of his CR 59.05 motion and resulting late appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction to enter restitution more than 10 days after final judgment	Steadman: court lost jurisdiction over the case ten days after entry of final judgment (and notice of appeal divested trial court)	Commonwealth: trial court retained general subject‑matter jurisdiction over felony and restitution; the 10‑day rule concerns particular‑case jurisdiction and can be waived	Court: retained that trial courts have general subject‑matter jurisdiction over restitution; Steadman waived the particular‑case jurisdiction objection by consenting and failing to object, so restitution order stands
Whether Steadman’s CR 59.05 motion was timely (serviced within 10 days) so his subsequent appeal from denial of CR 60.02 was timely	Steadman: his motion was mailed by Aug 1 (no prison weekend mail), so service occurred within 10 days; alternatively CR 6.05 adds 3 days	Commonwealth: motion undated and certificate fails to prove mailing date; CR 6.05 does not extend CR 59.05 period	Court: Steadman failed to prove mailing date, CR 6.05 does not apply; CR 59.05 motion untimely, his appeal of CR 60.02 was therefore untimely and dismissal of that part is affirmed

Kentucky Employers Mut. Ins. v. Coleman, 236 S.W.3d 9 (Ky. 2007) (subject‑matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time)
Gaither v. Commonwealth, 963 S.W.2d 621 (Ky. 1997) (general subject‑matter jurisdiction cannot be waived)
City of Devondale v. Stallings, 795 S.W.2d 954 (Ky. 1990) (filing of notice of appeal divests trial court of particular‑case jurisdiction)
Leonard v. Commonwealth, 279 S.W.3d 151 (Ky. 2009) (court retains jurisdiction where jurisdiction was proper at outset)
Milby v. Wright, 952 S.W.2d 202 (Ky. 1997) (distinction between subject‑matter and particular‑case jurisdiction)
Nordike v. Nordike, 231 S.W.3d 733 (Ky. 2007) (clarifies different concepts of jurisdiction)
Arnett v. Kennard, 580 S.W.2d 495 (Ky. 1979) (CR 6.05 applies only to periods measured from date of service; does not extend CR 59.05)
Bailey v. Commonwealth, 721 S.W.2d 706 (Ky. 1986) (restitution is part of sentence though not punishment)
Jones v. Commonwealth, 382 S.W.3d 22 (Ky. 2011) (restitution is proper component of final sentence)