Court Opinion

ID: 9693923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:09:49.164291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:54.346098
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: AUGUST 18, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

          Commonwealth of Kentucky
                 Court of Appeals
                    NO. 2022-CA-0391-MR

ALEXANDER HILL                                     APPELLANT

          APPEAL FROM BALLARD CIRCUIT COURT
v.       HONORABLE TIMOTHY A. LANGFORD, JUDGE
                 ACTION NO. 21-CR-00107

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                            APPELLEE

AND

                    NO. 2022-CA-0392-MR

ALEXANDER HILL                                     APPELLANT

          APPEAL FROM BALLARD CIRCUIT COURT
v.       HONORABLE TIMOTHY A. LANGFORD, JUDGE
                 ACTION NO. 21-CR-00108

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                            APPELLEE
                                     OPINION
                              AFFIRMING IN PART AND
                                VACATING IN PART

                                      ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: EASTON, LAMBERT, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

MCNEILL, JUDGE: This is a consolidated appeal of two criminal cases where

Appellant, Alexander Hill (Hill), pleaded guilty in the Ballard Circuit Court to two

counts of third-degree assault. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for

each count, probated for a total of ten years. Hill appeals the court’s imposition of

fees and costs. For the following reason, we affirm the court’s final judgment in

part, and vacate in part.

               Hill specifically argues that the circuit court erred when it levied the

jail fees against him, and that the final judgment should be corrected. He requests

palpable error review pursuant to RCr1 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.

               ....

1
    Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure.

                                            -2-
               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). With this standard in mind, we turn to the record at

issue here.

               The circuit court’s order imposing jail reimbursement fees stated that

“Ballard County had adopted a jail fee ordinance pursuant to applicable statute”

and that the applicable fees were $22.00 per day prior to July 1, 2021, and $30.00

per day after July 1, 2021. However, there is a discrepancy between the fee rates

used in the court’s separate order assessing jail fees, and those used in the final

judgment. The Commonwealth relies on the former, which assessed jail fees

totaling $5,028.00. Hill relies on the latter, which assessed jail fees at $5,274.00.2

However, both parties agree that Hill was also ordered to pay $185.00 in court

costs and $25.00 in other fees, in each of his two cases. We will first address the

jail fees, and then court costs.

2
  Even this sum is unclear given that the daily rate is hand-written. It was to be repaid at a rate
of $50.00 per month.

                                                -3-
                KRS3 441.265(1)(a) provides that a prisoner in a county jail “shall be

required . . . to reimburse the county for expenses incurred by reason of the

prisoner’s confinement . . . .” To facilitate the assessment of such fees, the county

jailer “may adopt, with the approval of the county’s governing body, a prisoner fee

and expense reimbursement policy . . . .” KRS 441.265(2)(a). However, our

Supreme Court has reiterated and emphasized that “in order to impose jail fees

against a criminal defendant during sentencing, there must be some evidence

presented that a jail fee reimbursement policy has been adopted by the county

[jailor] with approval of the country’s governing body in accordance with KRS

441. 265(2)(a).” Capstraw v. Commonwealth, 641 S.W.3d 148, 161-62 (Ky. 2022)

(footnote omitted). In the absence of such evidence, the Court concluded that “the

portion of the judgment whereby jail fees are imposed against him is hereby

vacated.” Id. at 162. In addition to Capstraw, we have addressed nearly identical

issues as follows:

                [T]he Kentucky Supreme Court . . . clarified that “since
                sentencing is jurisdictional it cannot be waived by failure
                to object. Thus, sentencing issues may be raised for the
                first time on appeal[.]” Capstraw v. Commonwealth, 641
                S.W.3d 148, 161 (Ky. 2022) (quoting Travis v.
                Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 456, 459 (Ky. 2010)). In
                Capstraw – contrary to the Commonwealth’s assertions –
                the Kentucky Supreme Court found error where a circuit
                court imposed jail fees, the defendant failed to preserve

3
    Kentucky Revised Statutes.

                                            -4-
             the issue, and the defendant requested palpable error
             review. Id. at 161-62. As we have an identical situation
             before us, we will follow the relevant precedent, i.e.,
             Capstraw.

Daniels v. Commonwealth, No. 2022-CA-0212-MR, 2022 WL 17724283, at *2

(Ky. App. Dec. 16, 2022); and

             Campbell correctly asserts that the trial court failed to
             make any finding that the jailer adopted, with the
             approval of the county’s governing body, a prisoner fee
             and expense reimbursement policy under KRS
             441.265(2)(a). In the absence of such a finding, the trial
             court improperly imposed jail fees on Campbell.

Campbell v. Commonwealth, No. 2020-CA-0690-MR, 2021 WL 1051590, at *5

(Ky. App. Mar. 19, 2021), disc. review denied (Aug. 18, 2021).

             Similarly, the record cited herein does not indicate that Ballard

County established a jail fee reimbursement policy pursuant to statute, or that such

a policy was presented to the circuit court when considering sentencing. See also

Alderson v. Commonwealth, No. 2022-SC-0071-MR, 2023 WL 4037704, at *15

(Ky. Jun. 15, 2023) (observing that evidence could be “as simple as the

Commonwealth Attorney providing a copy of the relevant ordinances”).

Therefore, the imposition of jail fees resulted in palpable error, and the order of the

Ballard Circuit Court imposing jail fees is VACATED.

             Hill also asserts that the circuit court committed a clerical error by

assessing $185.00 in court costs, and that the correct amount permitted under KRS

                                          -5-
23A et seq. is $165.00. As a remedy, Hill states that “RCr 10.10 gives this Court

authority to order the trial court to enter an amended final judgment which reflects

the correct court costs of $165, not $185.” In response, the Commonwealth cites

Spicer v. Commonwealth:

                    The assessment of court costs in a judgment fixing
             sentencing is illegal only if it orders a person adjudged to
             be poor to pay costs. Thus, while an appellate court may
             reverse court costs on appeal to rectify an illegal
             sentence, we will not go so far as to remand a facially-
             valid sentence to determine if there was in fact error.

442 S.W.3d 26, 35 (Ky. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). We cannot

conclude that the assessment of $185.00 in court costs was erroneous, and certainly

not palpably erroneous. Therefore, the order of Ballard Circuit Court imposing

court costs AFFIRMED.

             ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                      BRIEFS FOR APPELLEE:

Julia K. Pearson                           Daniel Cameron
Frankfort, Kentucky                        Attorney General of Kentucky

                                           Ken W. Riggs
                                           Assistant Attorney General
                                           Frankfort, Kentucky

                                         -6-