Jones v. Commonwealth
2011 Ky. LEXIS 180
| Ky. | 2011Background
- Appellant Thomas E. Jones Jr. pled guilty to third-degree rape and other offenses, receiving a twenty-year total sentence and restitution of $288,000, plus $175 in costs and a $5,126 jail fee.
- Restitution claim was not discussed in the plea; sentencing followed the agreed terms, with the judge imposing the restitution amount after victim impact statements.
- The trial court ordered reimbursement for the victim’s medical expenses and foreclosed any prior notice or opportunity to contest the restitution amount during sentencing.
- Jones did not object at trial; the Commonwealth conceded that court costs were improper, and the court later imposed a jail fee despite indigence considerations.
- The appellate court reversed the restitution and costs, affirmed the jail fee, and remanded for a proper restitution proceeding compliant with due process standards.
- The decision clarifies due process requirements for restitution under KRS 532.032 and states that the $100,000 limit in KRS 533.030(3) applies only to probationary sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Restitution due process adequacy | Jones argues restitution violated due process under Fields. | Commonwealth contends issue unpreserved; no due process violation evident. | Restitution vacated; remanded for proper due process hearing. |
| Restitution amount exceeding cap | Restitution exceeds $100,000 per KRS 533.030(3). | Cap applies only to probationary sentences; not applicable here. | Statutory cap not controlling here; issue deemed waived as sentencing issue; no relief needed on this point. |
| Court costs | Court costs improvidently imposed; inconsistent with indigence considerations. | Not disputed; however, issue requires review for preservation and statutory alignment. | Court costs reversed. |
| Jail fee | Jail fee should be set aside because indigence and statutory analysis. | Jail fee properly authorized under KRS 441.265(1) with discretionary consideration of ability to pay. | Jail fee affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fields v. Commonwealth, 123 S.W.3d 914 (Ky.App.2003) (due process requires reliable facts and opportunity to contest restitution)
- Wiley v. Commonwealth, 348 S.W.3d 570 (Ky.2010) (Fields principles apply to restitution—minimal due process and reliability standard)
- Grigsby v. Commonwealth, 302 S.W.3d 52 (Ky.2010) (sentencing issues are reviewable for statutory conformity as an error-correctible matter)
- Travis v. Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 456 (Ky.2010) (inherent jurisdiction to cure sentencing errors; non-waiver of sentencing issues)
- Wellman v. Commonwealth, 694 S.W.2d 696 (Ky.1985) (concept of 'sentencing is jurisdictional' in appellate review)
- Montgomery v. Commonwealth, 819 S.W.2d 713 (Ky.1991) (due process concerns in sentencing, particularly with respect to procedure)
- Ware v. Commonwealth, 34 S.W.3d 383 (Ky.App.2000) (failure to determine probation eligibility; sentencing considerations)
- Hughes v. Commonwealth, 875 S.W.2d 99 (Ky.1994) (consideration of all statutory sentencing options prior to imposing sentence)
- Alleman (Commonwealth v. Altenman), 306 S.W.3d 484 (Ky.2010) (due process protections in probation and revocation contexts)