Donald Howard v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
2016 Ky. LEXIS 333
| Ky. | 2016Background
- Donald Howard pled open guilty to five counts of first-degree trafficking (second offense) involving repeated small sales of prescription pills to a single confidential informant; he acknowledged exposure to a 20-year maximum.
- The trial court sentenced him to ten years and a $1,000 fine on each count, with two counts consecutive, for a 20-year total; it also ordered $600 public‑defender partial fee and court costs.
- Howard is a recidivist for the same trafficking offense; the court cited his prior conviction and use of his sons in the enterprise as aggravating factors.
- Howard appealed, arguing (1) the maximum sentence was an abuse of discretion and unconstitutional (double jeopardy and Eighth Amendment), and (2) fees and the $1,000 criminal fine were improperly imposed.
- The Commonwealth conceded the criminal fine was improper because Howard had been adjudged indigent under KRS Chapter 31; the Commonwealth defended the sentence, court costs, and partial public‑defender fee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Howard) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imposition of statutory‑maximum 20‑year sentence was an abuse of discretion | Court ignored mitigating evidence and predecided sentence; maximum was disproportionate | Trial court followed sentencing procedure, considered PSI, history, recidivism, and mitigation; open plea accepted risk of max | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; sentence supported by record |
| Whether multiple counts for repeated small sales violate Double Jeopardy / course‑of‑conduct rule | Repeated small sales to same buyer over short period should aggregate into one offense | Statute and precedent allow charging each discrete sale where statute addresses single acts | Court affirmed: no double‑jeopardy violation under binding precedent (multiple counts permissible) |
| Whether 20‑year sentence is cruel and unusual / disproportionate under Eighth Amendment | Sentence disproportionate to offense and harsher than co‑defendants; should be reduced | Defendant is recidivist, most involved in every transaction; open plea accepted possible max | Court held no palpable constitutional disproportionality; sentence upheld |
| Whether court costs, public‑defender partial fee, and $1,000 criminal fine were properly imposed | Howard was a "poor/indigent person" so costs/fees/fine must be waived | Court may impose costs unless a finding of "poor person"; partial fee appropriate per KRS 31.211; fine prohibited for Chapter 31 indigent | Court affirmed costs and $600 partial fee; vacated $1,000 criminal fine as improper and remanded for amended judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Edmonson v. Commonwealth, 725 S.W.2d 595 (Ky. 1987) (trial court must meaningfully consider mitigation before fixing sentence)
- Gray v. Commonwealth, 979 S.W.2d 454 (Ky. 1998) (multiple trafficking counts do not necessarily violate double‑jeopardy)
- Williams v. Commonwealth, 178 S.W.3d 491 (Ky. 2005) (statutory language focusing on singular acts supports separate charges)
- Riley v. Commonwealth, 120 S.W.3d 622 (Ky. 2003) (three‑part proportionality test for Eighth Amendment review)
- Spicer v. Commonwealth, 442 S.W.3d 26 (Ky. 2014) (indigency for appointed counsel is not identical to "poor person" for waiving court costs)
- Travis v. Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 456 (Ky. 2010) (appellate authority to correct defective sentencing re: fines and costs)
- Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1980) (recidivist sentencing may justify harsher punishment)