Court Opinion

ID: 9366616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 15:04:29.174145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:53.877051
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: JANUARY 20, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                          TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals

                              NO. 2021-CA-0949-MR

BLAKE JEFFREYS                                                        APPELLANT

                APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
v.                 HONORABLE MITCH PERRY, JUDGE
                       ACTION NO. 20-CR-001599

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                                APPELLEE

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: DIXON, LAMBERT, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

MCNEILL, JUDGE: In May of 2021, the Appellant, Blake Jeffreys (Jeffreys),

pled guilty to one count of promoting human trafficking. In doing so, Jeffreys

acknowledged that he had communicated with an undercover officer posing as a

minor who informed him that she was sixteen years old, and that they had agreed

to meet at a hotel to engage in commercial sexual activity. Jeffreys further

acknowledged that he had arrived at the hotel for the purpose of engaging in such

activity.
                Jeffreys pled guilty to one count of promoting human trafficking on

May 14, 2021. The Jefferson Circuit Court probated Jeffreys’ one-year sentence

for a period of five years, and ordered him to pay the $10,000 human trafficking

service fee pursuant to KRS1 529.130. Jeffreys’ counsel requested that the court

waive the fee because of his client’s indigency, which was denied. However, the

court indicated that it would revisit that decision if Jeffreys’ probation officer later

recommended waiving the service fee and the law permitted doing so. The court

waived all other cost, fines, and fees, except a $10 per month probation fee.

Lastly, the court explained that the $10,000 fee could be paid over the course of the

five-year probation period.

                                       ANALYSIS

                Jeffreys raises two arguments on appeal. First, he argues that the trial

court erred by failing to waive the $10,000 fee based on his indigent status.

Second, he argues that the service fee is an excessive fine under the Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and Section 17 of the

Kentucky Constitution. We will address each in turn. KRS 529.130 is titled

“Human trafficking victims service fee.” It provides as follows:

                Any person convicted of an offense in KRS 529.100 or
                529.110 shall be ordered to pay, in addition to any other
                fines, penalties, or applicable forfeitures, a human
                trafficking victims service fee of not less than ten

1
    Kentucky Revised Statutes.

                                            -2-
              thousand dollars ($10,000) to be remitted to the fund
              created in KRS 529.140.

Although this issue is sufficiently preserved, waiver of the fee was only briefly

discussed during Jeffreys’ sentencing hearing, and we are without the benefit of

specific findings on the issue. On appeal, Jeffreys argues that, as a matter of first

impression, the human trafficking service fee should be waived pursuant to KRS

534.030(4), which forbids the imposition of fines upon an indigent person, as

required by that section. The fee at issue here is not included in that section. See

KRS 529.130. Therefore, Jeffreys is not entitled to a waiver pursuant to KRS

534.030(4).

              In further support of his argument, Jeffreys cites Commonwealth v.

Moore, 545 S.W.3d 848, 853 (Ky. 2018) (holding that the DUI service fee was not

a fine). Ultimately concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in

assessing the DUI fee, the Court elaborated as follows:

                      Even though the service fee is not a fine, it is
              subject to waiver under KRS 534.020(3)(a)(1), which
              may or may not result in complete elimination of the
              defendant’s responsibility for payment of the service
              fee. . . . The service fee must be imposed in all cases.
              Only after its imposition can the court analyze a
              defendant’s ability to pay by way of a show cause
              hearing. If a defendant is unable to pay, “the court may
              enter an order allowing additional time for payment,
              reducing the amount of each installment, or modifying
              the manner of payment in any other way.” KRS
              534.020(3)(a)(1).

                                          -3-
Id. at 853-54. The same logic applies to a human trafficking service fee pursuant

to KRS 529.130. Accordingly, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion here.

                As to his constitutional argument, Jeffreys concedes that this issue is

not properly preserved, and therefore seeks palpable error review pursuant to RCr2

10.26 as follows:

                       A palpable error which affects the
                       substantial rights of a party may be
                       considered by the court on motion for a new
                       trial or by an appellate court on appeal, even
                       though insufficiently raised or preserved for
                       review, and appropriate relief may be
                       granted upon a determination that manifest
                       injustice has resulted from the error.

                . . . For an error to rise to the level of palpable, it must be
                easily perceptible, plain, obvious and readily noticeable.
                Generally, a palpable error affects the substantial rights
                of the party only if it is more likely than ordinary error to
                have affected the judgment.

Martin v. Commonwealth, 409 S.W.3d 340, 344 (Ky. 2013) (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted). We cannot say that the alleged error is “easily

perceptible, plain, obvious and readily noticeable.” Id. In fact, we cannot

conclude that it was an error at all. To do so would require this Court to first

categorize it as a fine, and then to assess its constitutionality under our state and

federal constitutions in what appear to be matters of first impression. This would

2
    Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure.

                                             -4-
necessitate multiple substantive determinations by this Court that would bypass our

rules of preservation and negate the purpose of RCr 10.26. Therefore, we affirm

the judgment.

            ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                    BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Euva D. May                              Daniel Cameron
Kate Hatheway                            Attorney General of Kentucky
Louisville, Kentucky
                                         Matthew F. Kuhn
                                         Brett R. Nolan
                                         Jeffrey A. Cross
                                         Daniel J. Grabowski
                                         Assistant Attorneys General
                                         Frankfort, Kentucky

                                        -5-