Opinion ID: 2540012
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Assessment of Court Costs on an Indigent Defendant

Text: Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it imposed court costs of $130.00, despite finding him indigent. Appellant, however, admits he failed to preserve this error and asks for palpable error review. The Commonwealth does not contest Appellant's assertion that he was a poor person under the statutory definition or that the trial court assessed court costs against him. KRS 23A.205(2). We review unpreserved issues under the palpable error standard of RCr 10.26. Potts v. Commonwealth, 172 S.W.3d 345 (Ky.2005). Under that rule, an unpreserved error may be noticed on appeal only if the error is palpable and affects the substantial rights of a party, and even then relief is appropriate only upon a determination that manifest injustice has resulted from the error. RCr 10.26. In general, a palpable error affects the substantial rights of a party only if it is more likely than ordinary error to have affected the judgment. Ernst v. Commonwealth, 160 S.W.3d 744, 762 (Ky. 2005). An unpreserved error that is both palpable and prejudicial still does not justify relief unless the reviewing court further determines that it has resulted in a manifest injustice, unless the error so seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceeding as to be shocking or jurisprudentially intolerable. Martin v. Commonwealth, 207 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Ky.2006). Here, we find the error to be palpable. Under KRS 23A.205(2), a trial court shall impose court costs on a defendant unless it finds that the defendant is a poor person. In this regard, we have previously found it to be manifestly unjust to impose court costs on an indigent defendant. Jackson v. Commonwealth, Nos. 2008-SC-000216-MR, 2008-SC-000264-MR, 2009 WL 3526653, at  (Ky. Oct. 15, 2009); see also Edmonson v. Commonwealth, 725 S.W.2d 595 (Ky.1987) (finding that the waiver of all costs for indigent defendants language of KRS 31.110(1)(b) controlled over KRS 23A.205(2), which provides the trial court discretion in imposing court costs). As we see no reason to depart from the reasoning in Jackson, we now reverse and vacate the trial court's imposition of court costs against Appellant.