527 S.W.3d 820
Ky. Ct. App.2017Background
- Jones pled guilty to third-degree assault and was sentenced to 3.5 years in prison; at sentencing the court also ordered $160 in court costs, to be paid in full within six months after release.
- At sentencing Jones said he was "able bodied" and had a phone card in his jail commissary account (funds placed there by someone else); he had no job, assets, or income and faced incarceration.
- The trial court entered a written judgment finding Jones had commissary assets and was not a "poor person," but Jones subsequently moved for in forma pauperis on appeal and the trial court granted it, finding him a pauper under KRS 453.190.
- Jones appealed only the imposition of court costs (not the conviction or term of imprisonment), arguing the costs violated KRS 23A.205 and that $30 of the assessed amount was an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment and the Kentucky Constitution.
- The Commonwealth urged the court could consider foreseeable future ability to pay; the trial court also indicated willingness to extend the post-release payment deadline if needed.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the unpreserved challenge for palpable error under RCr 10.26 and concluded imposition of court costs was improper given Jones’s indigence and the statutory limits on assessing costs.
Issues
| Issue | Jones' Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court costs may be imposed under KRS 23A.205 when defendant is indigent and incarcerated | Imposition violated KRS 23A.205 because Jones had no ability to pay and was effectively a "poor person" | Trial court reasonably found Jones had some commissary funds and could be expected to have foreseeable ability to pay; court may consider foreseeable future ability | Reversed: imposition of court costs was erroneous and palpable under RCr 10.26 given Jones’ indigence and statutory limitations; costs vacated |
| Whether court could reserve or reassess costs after sentencing or at release | Court lacked authority to retain jurisdiction to reassess costs after sentencing | Trial court attempted to set payment deadline after release / offered post-release extensions | Reversed: court cannot reserve jurisdiction to reassess costs after sentencing; determination must be made at sentencing |
| Whether $30 of the assessed costs constituted an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment / KY Const. §17 | $30 portion is an unconstitutional excessive fine | Commonwealth did not prevail on this preserved constitutional claim at trial; issue raised but statutory error dispositive | Not addressed as dispositive: the court resolved case on statutory/indigence grounds and reversed the costs; excessive-fine claim not required for reversal |
| Whether unpreserved sentencing/costs error is reviewable on appeal (palpable error) | Sentencing issues are not waived; imposition of costs on indigent is palpable error | Error unpreserved but reviewable only if palpable and affecting substantial rights | Agreed: sentencing/costs claims can be palpable error; court found palpable error in imposing costs on an indigent defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Commonwealth, 382 S.W.3d 22 (Ky. 2011) (sentencing issues not waived and distinction between statutory violations and procedural defects)
- Maynes v. Commonwealth, 361 S.W.3d 922 (Ky. 2012) (court may consider foreseeable future ability to pay; imposition appropriate when defendant soon regains ability to work)
- Buster v. Commonwealth, 381 S.W.3d 294 (Ky. 2012) (trial court must decide to impose or waive court costs at sentencing and may not retain jurisdiction to reassess after proceedings)
- Miller v. Commonwealth, 391 S.W.3d 857 (Ky. 2013) (trial court cannot reserve jurisdiction to review court costs after sentencing; determination must be made at sentencing)
- Wiley v. Commonwealth, 348 S.W.3d 570 (Ky. 2010) (imposition of court costs on an indigent defendant is palpable error)
- Ladriere v. Commonwealth, 329 S.W.3d 278 (Ky. 2010) (sentencing issues survive guilty pleas)
- Windsor v. Commonwealth, 250 S.W.3d 306 (Ky. 2008) (unconditional guilty plea does not waive sentencing challenges)
- Cummings v. Commonwealth, 226 S.W.3d 62 (Ky. 2007) (sentencing issues are not waived by failure to preserve)
- Sevier v. Commonwealth, 434 S.W.3d 443 (Ky. 2014) (court cost challenges fit within sentencing-issue jurisprudence)
- Webster v. Commonwealth, 438 S.W.3d 321 (Ky. 2014) (discussion of what qualifies as a sentencing issue)