Com. v. Hunt, 81-CA-486-MR
| Decision Date | 28 August 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-CA-486-MR,81-CA-486-MR |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellant, v. Earl HUNT, Appellee. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Douglas S. Weigle, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellee.
Before GANT, GUDGEL and HOWERTON, JJ.
On February 9, 1979, appellee was sentenced to three years confinement in the Kentucky State Reformatory, which sentence was probated for a term of five years.
About 20 months later, an indictment was returned against him, resulting in a conviction of a second felony, for which he was sentenced to a five-year term in the Kentucky State Reformatory.
Motion was filed for revocation of probation in the first case, which was uncontested as there was an obvious violation of the terms of the probation. The lower court sentenced the appellee to serve the three-year term previously imposed, running the sentence concurrently with the five-year sentence imposed in the second case.
The sole issue in this case is one of statutory construction, attempting to reconcile KRS 532.110(1) with KRS 533.060(2). The statutes in question read as follows:
(1) When multiple sentences of imprisonment are imposed on a defendant for more than one crime, including a crime for which a previous sentence of probation or conditional discharge has been revoked, such multiple sentences shall run concurrently or consecutively as the court shall determine at the time of the sentence ...
(2) When a person has been convicted of a felony and is committed to a correctional facility maintained by the bureau of corrections and released on parole or has been released by the court on probation, shock probation, or conditional discharge, and is convicted or enters a plea of guilty to a felony committed while on parole, probation, shock probation, or conditional discharge, such person shall not be eligible for probation, shock probation, or conditional discharge and the period of confinement for that felony shall not run concurrently with any other sentence.
The law on statutory construction in this state is well summarized in the case of Brown v. Hoblitzell, Ky., 307 S.W.2d 739, 744 (1956), as follows:
In enacting laws, the Legislature is presumed to take cognizance of the existing statutes and the condition of the law so that when the statute under consideration is ambiguous, the new enactment is to be construed in connection and in harmony with the existing laws as a part of a general and uniform system of jurisprudence. Button v. Hikes, 296 Ky. 163, 176...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Osborne v. Keeney
...recovery satisfied. 88.See, e.g., Williams v. Commonwealth, 829 S.W.2d 942, 945 (Ky.1992) (citations omitted). See also Commonwealth v. Hunt, 619 S.W.2d 733 (Ky.App.1981) (“In enacting laws, the Legislature is presumed to take cognizance of the existing statutes and the condition of the law......
- Osborne v. Keeney
-
Osborne v. Keeney
...satisfied. 88. See, e.g., Williams v. Commonwealth, 829 S.W. 942, 945 (Ky. 1992) (citations omitted). See also Commonwealth v. Hunt, 619 S.W.2d 733 (Ky.App. 1981) ("In enacting laws, the Legislature is presumed to take cognizance of the existing statutes and the condition of the law so that......
-
City of Mayfield v. Kennemore, 2016-CA-000841-MR
...and in harmony with" each other and cannot be reconciled. Thus a conflict exists, and the later statute controls.Commonwealth v. Hunt, 619 S.W.2d 733, 734 (Ky. App. 1981). Likewise, there is clearly a conflict between the two statutes at issue here: either the Board can file a petition purs......