Roberts v. Commonwealth, 410 S.W.3d 606

Early morning police encounter at Scottie Roberts’s home where five people admitted methamphetamine use; Roberts acknowledged items used in meth manufacture were present but denied participating in the cook.
Officers seized ephedrine, tobacco cans containing salt, lithium strip, glass jar with liquid, and other items consistent with a recent meth "cook." Record missing ~28 minutes of video, leaving some details unclear.
Roberts was convicted by jury of: Manufacturing Methamphetamine; Possession of a Defaced Firearm; Use/Possession with Intent to Use Drug Paraphernalia; Second-Degree Possession of a Controlled Substance; and Fourth-Degree Controlled Substance Endangerment to a Child.
Trial court sentenced Roberts to 22 years imprisonment and assessed $1,500 in fines (three $500 misdemeanor fines adopted from jury recommendations).
Roberts appealed, arguing (1) trial court erred by refusing a Criminal Facilitation instruction as a lesser included offense to manufacturing; (2) court erred by not giving, sua sponte, a lesser included instruction for unlawful possession of a meth precursor; and (3) fines were improperly imposed on an indigent defendant.
Court affirmed convictions, held Criminal Facilitation is not a lesser included offense of Manufacturing, declined palpable-error relief on the unrequested precursor instruction, but vacated and remanded the fines portion because statutes bar fines for indigent defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Roberts)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Whether Criminal Facilitation is a lesser included offense of Manufacturing Methamphetamine	Evidence did not prove Roberts himself manufactured; jury could rationally find facilitation instead	Criminal Facilitation is not a lesser included offense of the charged principal offense	Denied — Criminal Facilitation is not a lesser included offense of Manufacturing; no instruction required
Whether trial court erred by not sua sponte instructing on Unlawful Possession of a Methamphetamine Precursor as a lesser included offense	Evidence could have supported conviction for precursor possession instead of manufacturing; instruction necessary to avoid prejudice	No instruction requested; RCr 9.54(2) bars review absent request; no palpable error shown	Denied — no relief: failure to give unrequested lesser-included instruction not reversible absent palpable error and none shown
Whether imposition of fines on an indigent defendant violated statute	Roberts was indigent (appointed counsel); fines should not have been imposed	Commonwealth did not contest indigence issue	Granted in part — fines vacated and case remanded for entry of judgment consistent with statutory prohibition on fining indigent persons

Houston v. Commonwealth, 975 S.W.2d 925 (Ky. 1998) (criminal facilitation is not a lesser included offense of the principal/object offense)
Bartley v. Commonwealth, 400 S.W.3d 714 (Ky. 2013) (trial court must instruct on lesser included offenses when requested and supported by evidence; failure to instruct on unrequested offenses is not error)
Brewer v. Commonwealth, 206 S.W.3d 343 (Ky. 2006) (palpable error standard requires substantial possibility that result would differ)
Jones v. Commonwealth, 382 S.W.3d 22 (Ky. 2011) (sentencing issues, including statutory violations, are not waived by failure to object)
Travis v. Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 456 (Ky. 2010) (applies clear-error review to unpreserved improper-fine claims)