Opinion ID: 2461509
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: minimum parole eligibility

Text: Parole is not a judicial function but an executive function. It is administered by the Parole Board, an autonomous body appointed as directed in KRS 439.320. Parole is nothing more than post-conviction clemency, a matter of grace. The Parole Board has promulgated various administrative regulations establishing rules and a schedule for parole eligibility, but the Parole Board is free to revise these rules and schedule at any time, and, further, to review the case of any inmate for parole consideration prior to his eligibility date if it appears advisable to do so. Kentucky Parole Board Reg. DC-RG6(8). As stated in the Commentary to KRS 532.060, Sentence of Imprisonment for felony, The actual length of his imprisonment is to be determined by the parole board. Indeed, new rules for determining parole eligibility were enacted by emergency regulation effective September 12, 1988 (501 KAR 1:030E), subject to a public hearing scheduled for October 21, 1988, and thus the rules regarding parole eligibility applicable to this appellant may already be changed. This is the kind of uncertain information that our Majority Opinion stamps with approval as admissible evidence. As stated in my Dissenting Opinion in Commonwealth v. Reneer, supra at 800, anticipating this problem: What will the Commonwealth tell the jury about minimum parole eligibility?. . . [T]he power to determine the period of incarceration passes completely to the Parole Board. . . . `[W]e [have] in Kentucky an indeterminate sentence with a maximum term that [is] fixed by the jury and no minimum term.' Commentary to KRS 532.060. There is no way to comprehensibly convey to the jury all of the conflicting possibilities that surround parole eligibility.. . . The prospect of confusion and `half-truths' is inevitable. There are two prongs to the attack on permitting the prosecution to introduce evidence about minimum parole eligibility, both valid. One is that it is bad judicial policy making and the second is that it is unconstitutional. The sentencing procedure, including the decision whether to permit evidence about minimum parole eligibility, is a matter of judicial policy because procedure has been constitutionally allocated to the judicial branch of the government. In Reneer we made a decision to adopt certain procedures as a general concept because the General Assembly has recommended them, subject to subsequent review of individual rules for abuses or injustices. Now we have been confronted with clear abuse and injustice, and nevertheless embrace the General Assembly's recommendation to permit evidence about parole. We have done so in conflict with longstanding, well reasoned judicial precedent mandating a contrary result. For instance, in Broyles v. Commonwealth, Ky., 267 S.W.2d 73, 76 (1954), we explained why parole eligibility should not be considered in sentencing thusly: [W]hen the judiciary attempts to anticipate the rules of the legislative and executive departments relating to the parole of prisoners, and attempts, in effect, to circumvent those rules it infringes upon the prerogatives of other departments of government. The long line of cases condemning discussion of parole eligibility includes Farmer v. Commonwealth, Ky., 450 S.W.2d 494 (1970); Abernathy v. Commonwealth, Ky., 439 S.W.2d 949 (1969); Brown v. Commonwealth, Ky., 445 S.W.2d 845 (1969), and Ringo v. Commonwealth, Ky., 346 S.W.2d 21 (1961). In Postell v. Commonwealth, 174 Ky. 272, 192 S.W. 39, 44 (1917), we stated the fundamental principle as follows: [T]he jury's verdict [on sentencing] should not be influenced by what another department of the state government might or might not do, or had authority to do. It is to be guided only by the facts pertaining to the guilt or innocence of the accused, and the law applicable thereto. Before enactment of the Truth-In-Sentencing statute, the character of the crime was the only consideration for the jury in fixing the sentence for the offense. [1] After enactment of the Truth-In-Sentencing statute, the character of the criminal has been added to the character of the offense as a consideration in setting the sentence for the offense. It allows proof of his character in those specifics itemized by the statute. Even if we assume that this profound change should occur, that the character of the criminal as well as the character of the offense should be considered in sentencing, future parole eligibility still does not fit into the pattern. Constitutional limitations on the government's exercise of arbitrary power and the constitutional guarantee of due process should prohibit using evidence in sentencing that is inherently misleading, confusing or incomplete. Ky. Const., Sec. 2. It is one thing for the Truth-In-Sentencing statute to permit, and for us to condone by comity, jury consideration of past criminal history in setting the sentence for the offense being tried. However, it is quite a different matter to factor in speculation on future parole eligibility, a matter which is inherently vague and unknowable, and subject to subsequent change. Statutes or criminal rules permitting such evidence necessarily transgress constitutional limitations on arbitrariness. The case against the majority position is fully made by the Tennessee Supreme Court. Not too long ago it struck down a similar law requiring trial court judges in criminal cases to inform the jury about parole in Farris v. State, 535 S.W.2d 608, 614 (Tenn.1976), in these words: Jurors should not be permitted to speculate on the length of sentences, discretionary parole, the accumulation of good and honor time and a whole conglomeration of contingent events which, if they come to pass at all, will come to pass in the future. Very heavily involved is the constitutional right of a defendant to a fair trial. This is trial `by guess and by golly', and we will not countenance it by upholding a statute which offends every sense of fairness and every precept of due process. . . . . The matter of the future disposition of a convicted defendant is wholly and utterly foreign to his guilt and is not a proper consideration by a jury in determining the length of his sentence. Against this array of our own judicial precedents and powerful reasons why this Court should not permit evidence of minimum parole eligibility, the Majority Opinion offers nothing more than language from a United States Supreme Court case, badly misapplied, because an entirely different issue was involved. The Majority Opinion cites California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 103 S.Ct. 3446, 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983). California v. Ramos involved instructions to a jury in a capital case where one of the possible sentences was life without possibility of parole. Obviously, a jury required to choose between the death penalty and a sentence to life without possibility of parole or a sentence where parole is possible, is necessarily told that parole is a prospect. This is so inapposite to our present Opinion allowing the Commonwealth to produce vague, uncertain and incomplete evidence about existing minimum parole guidelines that further comment is a waste of space.