RENDERED: AUGUST 20, 2021; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2020-CA-0326-MR

FREDERICK R. MILLER1 APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT

v. HONORABLE JULIE M. GOODMAN, JUDGE

ACTION NOS. 13-CR-00829 AND 13-CR-01310

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE

OPINION

AFFIRMING

**   **  **

BEFORE: CALDWELL, DIXON, AND L. THOMPSON, JUDGES.

THOMPSON, L., JUDGE: Frederick Miller, pro se, appeals from an order of the 

Fayette Circuit Court which denied his motion to correct his sentence. Appellant 

 

1 The Appellant’s first name appears to be misspelled in the notice of appeal. We have adopted 

the spelling from his pro se brief and the record below.
-2-

argues that his twenty-nine-year sentence is in violation of statutory law. We find 

no error and affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appellant was incarcerated while awaiting trial on case number 13-

CR-00829. He was granted a day pass to attend a funeral, but failed to return. 

Upon his arrest, he was charged with second-degree escape,2first-degree fleeing or 

evading police,3and being a persistent felony offender (PFO) in the first degree4in 

case number 13-CR-01310. For 13-CR-00829, Appellant entered a guilty plea to 

two counts of second-degree robbery5and PFO in the first degree. Pursuant to the 

plea agreement, he was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Appellant proceeded 

to a jury trial in 13-CR-01310. The jury found him guilty of second-degree escape 

and PFO in the first degree. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on first-degree 

fleeing or evading police, but Appellant chose to plead guilty to second-degree 

fleeing or evading police.6 Appellant was then sentenced to fourteen years in 

 

2 Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 520.030.

3 KRS 520.095.

4 KRS 532.080(3).

5 KRS 515.030.

6 KRS 520.100.
-3-

prison. The two sentences were then set to run consecutively, for a total of twentynine years in prison. All of the felony charges of which Appellant was convicted 

were Class C and Class D felonies.

Around five years later, Appellant filed a motion seeking to correct 

his sentence. He argued that the total number of years he is to be incarcerated 

violated KRS 532.110(1)(c), which states:

(1) When multiple sentences of imprisonment are 

imposed on a defendant for more than one (1) crime, 

including a crime for which a previous sentence of 

probation or conditional discharge has been revoked, the 

multiple sentences shall run concurrently or 

consecutively as the court shall determine at the time of 

sentence, except that:

. . .

(c) The aggregate of consecutive indeterminate 

terms shall not exceed in maximum length the 

longest extended term which would be authorized 

by KRS 532.080 for the highest class of crime for 

which any of the sentences is imposed. In no 

event shall the aggregate of consecutive 

indeterminate terms exceed seventy (70) years[.]

Looking at KRS 532.080, we see that KRS 532.080(6)(b) states:

(6) A person who is found to be a persistent felony 

offender in the first degree shall be sentenced to 

imprisonment as follows:

. . .

(b) If the offense for which he presently stands 

convicted is a Class C or Class D felony, a 
-4-

persistent felony offender in the first degree shall 

be sentenced to an indeterminate term of 

imprisonment, the maximum of which shall not be 

less than ten (10) years nor more than twenty (20) 

years.

Appellant’s motion seeking to correct his sentence argued that when 

reading KRS 532.110(1)(c) and KRS 532.080(6)(b) together, he should not have 

been incarcerated for more than twenty years. The trial court denied his motion 

and this appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

We believe the trial court was correct in denying Appellant’s motion 

and conclude that his twenty-nine-year sentence was appropriate. KRS 532.110(3) 

states:

Notwithstanding any provision in this section to the 

contrary, if a person is convicted of an offense that is 

committed while he is imprisoned in a penal or 

reformatory institution, during an escape from 

imprisonment, or while he awaits imprisonment, the 

sentence imposed for that offense may be added to the 

portion of the term which remained unserved at the time 

of the commission of the offense. The sentence imposed 

upon any person convicted of an escape or attempted 

escape offense shall run consecutively with any other 

sentence which the defendant must serve.

Here, Appellant was incarcerated, granted a day pass, and failed to return. He was 

arrested and subsequently charged with escape. KRS 532.110(3) applies to this 

scenario. The felony escape conviction was required to run consecutively to the 
-5-

robbery conviction, even though it would exceed the usual aggregate twenty-year 

maximum sentence. Appellant’s twenty-nine-year sentence does not violate 

statutory law. In addition, our holding today is in line with identical holdings in 

King v. Commonwealth, 374 S.W.3d 281, 297 (Ky. 2012), and Gaither v.

Commonwealth, 963 S.W.2d 621, 622-23 (Ky. 1997), as modified on denial of

reh’g (Apr. 16, 1998).

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

Appellant’s total sentence of twenty-nine years does not violate Kentucky law. 

Both statutory law and case law deem it proper.

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:

Frederick R. Miller, pro se

Eddyville, Kentucky

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Daniel Cameron

Attorney General of Kentucky

Leilani K. M. Martin

Assistant Attorney General

Frankfort, Kentucky