Court Opinion

ID: 9693918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:09:43.947251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:08:38.915001
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: AUGUST 18, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                          TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals
                             NO. 2022-CA-1465-MR

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                             APPELLANT

                APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
v.               HONORABLE BRIAN C. EDWARDS, JUDGE
                       ACTION NO. 19-CR-001930

CARRIE L. CARROLL                                                      APPELLEE

                                OPINION
                        VACATING AND REMANDING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: CETRULO, ECKERLE, AND GOODWINE, JUDGES.

CETRULO, JUDGE: The Commonwealth appeals a Jefferson Circuit Court order

discharging Appellee Carrie Carroll (“Carroll”) from diversion and converting the

remainder of her criminal restitution into a civil judgment. After review, we find

no statutory authority for such a conversion, and therefore we vacate and remand.
                                        BACKGROUND

                 In April 2019, Carroll made unapproved charges on a credit card

belonging to her mother, Brunilda Landram1 (“Landram”) while she was in the

hospital with lung cancer. In July 2019, Carroll pled guilty – pursuant to a plea

agreement – to one count of wantonly or recklessly exploiting an adult. The

restitution order held Carroll solely liable for the total amount of restitution and

directed her to pay $6,190. Carroll received a two-year sentence, but that was

diverted for three years “or until restitution is paid in full, whichever is longer[.]”

Monthly payments were set at $50 per month.

                 In June 2020, Carroll filed a motion to remove restitution as a

condition of her diversion because Landram had passed away. After a hearing, the

court granted her motion but allowed for payments to be re-established after the

estate was settled. In March 2021, the circuit court reinstated restitution with

payments to Emily Hathcock,2 the sole beneficiary of Landram’s estate. The

circuit court entered a new restitution order in the remaining amount of $5,641.42.

This second restitution order stated “[d]ue to the amount of restitution owed and

1
  The parties (intermittently) refer to Carroll’s mother as “Landrum,” but the record contains a
letter from the restitution coordinator correcting the victim’s name to “Landram.”
2
    Emily Hathcock is Landram’s sister, Carroll’s aunt.

                                                 -2-
the length of the payment terms, the Court finds that it is necessary that probation

extend beyond five years until restitution is paid in full.”

             In September 2022, Carroll moved the circuit court to “discharge her

from diversion and convert the remainder of her restitution into a civil judgment.”

The Commonwealth opposed the motion, but the circuit court granted the motion

based on its broad statutory powers to 1) establish restitution parameters, and 2)

modify or enlarge the conditions of probation. In its order, the circuit court noted

that Carroll had completed her three-year diversion without any violations and

would have completed diversion but for her remaining restitution.

             At this time, further supervision and restitution payments
             through the criminal justice system are superfluous, and
             civil remedies for collecting the restitution are the more
             viable option. Ultimately, it is not the role of the criminal
             justice system and the Commonwealth of Kentucky to
             serve as a collections agency on these types of matters
             where civil remedies would be a more effective
             alternative.

Opinion and Order, Case No. 19-CR-001930, Jefferson Circuit Court (filed Nov.

19, 2022).

             The Commonwealth appealed.

                                     ANALYSIS

             On appeal, the Commonwealth argues that the circuit court does not

have statutory authority to convert a restitution order to a civil judgment. The

Commonwealth states, “nothing in the statutes granting [broad restitution and

                                          -3-
probation authority] allows for a trial court to remove an order entered under its

jurisdiction to oversee criminal probationers and their conditions and turn that

order into a new order enforceable through the court’s civil jurisdiction.”

Additionally, the Commonwealth argues such a conversion of criminal restitution

into a civil judgment is contrary to public policy because it could improperly result

in the cancellation of Carroll’s restitution obligation through the diversion-to-

expungement process and/or bankruptcy proceedings.

             To the contrary, Carroll argues that the Kentucky Revised Statutes

(“KRS”) – specifically KRS 533.020, 533.030, 532.032, 533.254, and 431.200 –

read as a whole, grant the circuit court broad authority to modify restitution

obligations and the terms of probation, and that authority includes the implied

power to convert a criminal restitution order into a civil judgment. She argues this

conversion is not contrary to public policy, is a more effective way to manage

restitution payments, and fulfills the purpose of the restitution statutes. While we

appreciate the merits of Carroll’s argument, we do not find the authority for such a

conversion within the statutes.

             Statutory interpretation is an issue of law, which we review de novo.

Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Fell, 391 S.W.3d 713, 718 (Ky. 2012) (citation

omitted). Turning to the applicable statutes, the circuit court has broad discretion

to “modify or enlarge the conditions” of probation (KRS 533.020(2)) and/or of

                                          -4-
conditional discharge (KRS 533.020(3)). See also KRS 533.020(1). “Restitution

shall be ordered in all cases where a victim has suffered monetary damage as a

result of the alleged crime.” KRS 533.254(2). More relevant here, because the

circuit court granted pretrial diversion for Carroll, KRS 532.032(2) requires that

“restitution shall be a part of the diversion agreement.”

             Carroll argues that KRS 431.200 permits a court to “give judgment

against the defendant for reparation of damages . . . to be collected by another

process, a civil judgment, rather than through the criminal process.” However,

KRS 431.200 is not applicable here. KRS 431.200 deals with post-sentencing

orders of restitution. That statute gives the court a framework to order restitution

or “give judgment against the defendant for reparation[s] in damages” in situations

where the victim is not made whole (i.e., where the court had not ordered the

defendant to restore the property or make reparation in damages) “as a condition of

probation.” KRS 431.200; see also Rollins v. Commonwealth, 294 S.W.3d 463,

465-66 (Ky. App. 2009).

             Here, the circuit court ordered restitution at the time of sentencing

pursuant to KRS 532.032, “the generally applicable criminal restitution statute[.]”

Fields v. Commonwealth, 123 S.W.3d 914, 916 (Ky. App. 2003). True, Carroll’s

restitution was ordered at sentencing (as a condition of pretrial diversion), paused

for administrative purposes while an heir was located, then reinstated; however,

                                         -5-
that reinstatement was not a new post-sentencing order. It was a continuation of

the original restitution order. The circuit court was within its statutory authority to

modify the terms of Carroll’s probation under KRS 533.020, to extend probation

until restitution was paid in full, pursuant to KRS 532.033(8), and to continue

probation beyond five years if more time was “necessary to complete restitution”

(KRS 533.020(4)).

             Here, our objective is to look at the plain and ordinary meaning of the

statute’s words to determine the legislature’s intent in enacting the legislation.

Comm’n on Hum. Rts. v. Fincastle Heights Mut. Ownership Corp., 633 S.W.3d

808, 815-16 (Ky. App. 2021) (citation omitted). We must read the relevant statute

as a whole and in context with other parts of the law. Richardson v. Louisville/

Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov’t, 260 S.W.3d 777, 779 (Ky. 2008) (citing Lewis v.

Jackson Energy Co-op. Corp., 189 S.W.3d 87, 92 (Ky. 2005)). However, we are

“not free to expand the scope of statutes beyond that which is evident from the

language utilized by the legislature[.]” Holsclaw v. Perkins, 268 S.W.3d 376, 377

(Ky. App. 2008) (citation omitted). “We are not at liberty to add or subtract from

the legislative enactment nor discover meaning not reasonably ascertainable from

the language used.” Id. (quoting Beckham v. Bd. of Educ. of Jefferson Cnty., 873

S.W.2d 575, 577 (Ky. 1994)). As such, we are not permitted to extend the relevant

statutes to encompass a conversion of a criminal restitution order into a civil

                                          -6-
judgment when no such power is apparent through a plain reading of the restitution

statutes: KRS 533.020, 533.030, 532.032, and 533.254. Moreover, we know that

the legislative purpose behind restitution includes deterrence, rehabilitation, and

making the victim whole, Hearn v. Commonwealth, 80 S.W.3d 432, 436 (Ky.

2002), but a conversion such as requested here is not necessary to carry out that

legislative intent.

              Aptly, Carroll and the Commonwealth turn to public policy to further

their arguments. We agree that public policy considerations may be helpful to

ascertain legislative intent. Pearce v. University of Louisville, by and through its

Board of Trustees, 448 S.W.3d 746, 749 (Ky. 2014) (citing MPM Financial Group

Inc. v. Morton, 289 S.W.3d 193, 198 (Ky. 2009)). However, we must keep in

mind, that we, as the judiciary, may consider public policy to determine the

legislature’s intent, but it is not our role to create public policy, as that role belongs

exclusively to the legislature. See Cameron v. Beshear, 628 S.W.3d 61, 75 (Ky.

2021) (“As we have noted time and again, so many times that we need not provide

citation, the General Assembly establishes the public policy of the

Commonwealth.”). While we find Carroll’s public policy points noteworthy, those

arguments do not outweigh a public policy concern we share with the

Commonwealth.

                                           -7-
               First, Carroll argues that KRS 533.030 states the conditions of

probation are “to ensure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist

him or her to do so[,]” which Carroll’s incident-free diversion period successfully

demonstrates. She argues that, after her initial probation period ended, the circuit

court was free to modify the conditions of her diversion, including alteration of her

restitution arrangement. However, that argument uses broad strokes where a detail

brush would be more useful. KRS 532.033(8) clearly instructs a judge to “[n]ot

release the defendant from probation supervision until restitution has been paid in

full and all other aspects of the probation order have been successfully completed.”

We agree that the conditions of probation should encourage a lawful lifestyle, but

that does not outweigh the accountability mandated by KRS 532.033.

               Second, Carroll points out the intent of restitution is to restore

property (or the value thereof) to the victim,3 and because the victim here is now

deceased, the intent of the statute is not furthered by continuing criminal

restitution. Plainly, the death of a victim does not relieve a defendant of a duty to

pay restitution. See Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Edwards, 377 S.W.3d 557, 565 (Ky.

2012). True, Carroll’s mother is not alive to receive the restoration of her funds,

3
  See Vaughn v. Commonwealth, 371 S.W.3d 784, 785 (Ky. App. 2012) (quoting Commonwealth
v. Bailey, 721 S.W.2d. 706, 707 (Ky. 1986)) (internal quotation marks omitted) (“[T]he
[Kentucky Supreme Court] explained that the purpose of restitution is not an additional
punishment exacted by the criminal justice system. . . . It is merely a system designed to restore
property or the value thereof to the victim.”).

                                               -8-
but her estate is less the amount stolen and her estate should be made whole and

the value of her property restored.

               Third, Carroll argues that converting a criminal restitution order into a

civil judgment transfers debt collection to an area of the judicial process that is

more efficient at that collection process.4 While that may be true, and we give

value to that argument, the minimal benefit to judicial economy of such a

conversion does not tip the scales in Carroll’s favor.

               Additionally, we share a public policy concern with the

Commonwealth.5 Transferring restitution to civil court would – upon default by

the payor/defendant – put the burden on the victim to pursue the funds owed. Such

a result could be costly for the payee/victim, and an unacceptable risk. The KRS –

as it relates to restitution – clearly intends to make the victim of a theft whole, not

to make the victim fight to be made whole.

4
  Carroll argues that the criminal court is not the most effective system in managing restitution
payments, in part, because additional fees imposed through the restitution and monitoring puts
money into the court system that could be going to the restitution obligation. Moreover, she
argues the civil court is a more effective, cost-efficient way to collect the judgment because
“liens can be placed, bank accounts can be seized, and wages can be garnished.”
5
  The Commonwealth also argues that a civil judgment is more likely to be dischargeable through
bankruptcy proceedings than criminal restitution. While that may be true, here, under these
circumstances, it is unlikely Carroll’s debt would be discharged through bankruptcy in either
form: criminal restitution (Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 50, 107 S. Ct. 353, 361, 93 L. Ed. 2d
216 (1986)), or civil judgment (Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, 598 U.S. 69, 143 S. Ct. 665, 670, 214
L. Ed. 2d 434 (2023), 11 United States Code § 523(a)(2)(A)). However, that issue is beyond our
review, and it is left to the bankruptcy court to confirm each bankruptcy plan individually and to
determine the rights and obligations of the parties. See Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 575 U.S. 496,
502, 135 S. Ct. 1686, 1692, 191 L. Ed. 2d 621 (2015).

                                                -9-
                                 CONCLUSION

             Accordingly, we VACATE the Jefferson Circuit Court order

converting Carroll’s criminal restitution into a civil judgment. Further, we

REMAND for additional proceedings to continue Carroll’s criminal restitution

payments until restitution has been paid in full in accordance with KRS 532.033.

             ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                     BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Daniel Cameron                            Jennifer E. Hubbard
Attorney General of Kentucky              Louisville, Kentucky

Jason B. Moore
Special Assistant Attorney General
Louisville, Kentucky

                                        -10-