Opinion ID: 1664017
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: persistent felony offender enhancement

Text: Between the time Bolen was indicted and tried, KRS 532.080, as amended in the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1998, became effective. The amended version of the statute created a new section, which was codified as KRS 532.080(8). This new subsection provides: No conviction, plea of guilty, or Alford plea to a violation of KRS 218A.500 shall bring a defendant within the purview of or be used as a conviction eligible for making a person a persistent felony offender under this section. Bolen moved the trial court in limine to allow him to take advantage of the benefits of this new subsection of the statute, i.e., he argued that the amendment precluded a sentence for a possible conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia (second offense) from being enhanced under KRS 532.080. The trial court denied the motion on grounds that the amendment in question was not substantive and did not apply. After being convicted, Bolen renewed the motion at sentencing. This time, the trial court reasoned that KRS 532.080(8) operates to prevent enhancement where a previous conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia constitutes a prior felony in the determination of persistent felony offender status, but that the provision did not preclude a second conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia from being enhanced. We disagree, and therefore reverse the conviction for PFO I based on his conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia (second offense). First of all, we note that clearly Bolen was entitled to take advantage of the benefits of the statute. KRS 446.110 provides in pertinent part: If any penalty, forfeiture or punishment is mitigated by any provision of the new law, such provision may, by the consent of the party affected, be applied to any judgment pronounced after the new law takes effect. This statute creates an exception to the general rule that [n]o statute shall be construed to be retroactive, unless expressly so declared. KRS 446.080. The exception of KRS 446.110 only applies if the new penalty is definitely mitigating. Commonwealth v. Phon, Ky., 17 S.W.3d 106, 108 (2000), citing Coleman v. Commonwealth, 160 Ky. 87, 169 S.W. 595, 597 (1914). The amendment to KRS 532.080 in question eliminates an eligible person's sentence from being enhanced as a persistent felony offender. The amendment is definitely mitigating. Further, we have no trouble concluding that the plain meaning of KRS 532.080(8) makes Bolen eligible to take advantage of its benefit. Bolen's conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia (second offense) was a conviction for violation of KRS 218A.500. KRS 532.080(8) expressly provides: No conviction [for] a violation of KRS 218A.500 shall ... be used as a conviction eligible for making a person a persistent felony offender under this section. Nonetheless, the trial court instructed the jury on first-degree persistent felony offender as to possession of drug paraphernalia (second offense). The jury found Bolen guilty of the offense and fixed his punishment at ten (10) years' imprisonment. In other words, Bolen was convicted of PFO I based on his conviction for a violation of KRS 218A.500. This is contrary to KRS 532.080(8), which made Bolen ineligible for being convicted as a persistent felony offender based on his conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia (second offense).