Opinion ID: 1860418
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Failure to Dismiss PFO

Text: Appellant next alleges the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the PFO indictment because the prior convictions relied upon failed to meet the requirements for purposes of PFO enhancement. We disagree. A review of the verdict forms and the potential interpretation the jurors gave them involves consideration of the instructions they were given. The inquiry we make involves what a `reasonable juror' would understand the charge to mean. Wilson v. Commonwealth, 836 S.W.2d 872, 892 (Ky.1992) ( overruled on other grounds by St. Clair v. Roark, 10 S.W.3d 482 (Ky. 1999) citing Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 105 S.Ct. 1965, 85 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985)). At issue is Appellant's case from the Franklin Circuit, case number 86-CR-190. There, Appellant was convicted of attempted first-degree sodomy and sentenced to fourteen (14) years incarceration. Appellant claims that the Franklin County jury failed to sentence him on the underlying felony and sentenced him solely as a second-degree PFO. However, after reviewing the verdict form from that case, it is apparent that the jury sentenced Appellant on the underlying felony as well. The Franklin County verdict form stated: (a) We the jury find the Defendant, Frederick L. Miller, Not Guilty of being a Persistent Felony Offender in the 2nd degree. We fix his punishment on his conviction of Criminal Attempt to Commit Sodomy in the 1st Degree, at ____ years confinement in the penitentiary. (b) We the jury find the Defendant, Frederick L. Miller, Guilty of being a Persistent Felony Offender, 2nd Degree, and fix his punishment at ____ years in the penitentiary. A reasonable juror could have read this form and understood it to mean that the second choice was a conviction of the felony, with an enhancement of PFO second-degree. Moreover, even if the jury from the Franklin Circuit is deemed to have sentenced Appellant solely on the PFO charge, it is still not reversible error. In Montgomery v. Commonwealth, 819 S.W.2d 713 (Ky.1991), we held that a jury's failure to set a penalty for the underlying offense did not violate the provisions of the PFO statute. The error here, if there was one, was a procedural matter which we need not address in the absence of a contemporaneous objection. Montgomery, 819 S.W.2d at 721. Here, there was no contemporaneous objection in the Warren County proceedings, or in the Franklin County trial. The trial court was correct in its ruling.