Edmonson v. Com., 86-SC-369-MR
| Decision Date | 12 March 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-SC-369-MR,86-SC-369-MR |
| Citation | 725 S.W.2d 595 |
| Parties | John EDMONSON, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Daniel T. Goyette, J. David Niehaus, Jefferson Dist. Public Defender, Louisville, for appellant.
David L. Armstrong, Atty. Gen., Barbara A. Kriz, Daniel E. Cohen, Asst. Attys. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.
Appellant appeals to this Court as a matter of right from a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court sentencing him to twenty years imprisonment on two counts of first degree attempted rape and two counts of first degree sexual abuse. Appellant also appeals from that portion of the judgment imposing court costs. In addition, he contends that the trial court's failure to consider probation was prejudicial error.
On January 28, 1986, appellant pled guilty to the charges set forth above. His plea was in exchange for the Commonwealth's recommendation of ten years on each of the attempted rape charges, and five years on each of the sexual abuse charges. There was no agreement as to whether the Commonwealth would recommend consecutive or concurrent sentences. The victims were appellant's daughters, ages five years and three years.
A sentencing hearing was set for February 24, 1986, and a pre-sentence investigation was ordered by the Court. Prior to the sentencing hearing, the pre-sentence investigation report was filed and was available for review by the trial judge. At the sentencing hearing, appellant appeared with counsel and argument was presented in favor of having the sentences run concurrently for a total of ten years imprisonment. Appellant's counsel argued that appellant had been sexually abused as a child, that he voluntarily obtained treatment, and that he had no previous criminal record.
At the sentencing hearing, appellant also objected to the imposition of court costs. His grounds for seeking waiver of court costs were that he was indigent and was being represented by the public defender's office *.
While the sentencing hearing was in progress, appellant's trial counsel advised the court that a statute precluded probation and the trial court agreed with this conclusion. Appellant now argues, however, that attempted rape is not one of the crimes for which denial of probation is required under KRS 532.045(1)(a). He denies that his crime constituted "substantial sexual conduct" as defined by the KRS 532.045(2), and urges this Court to review this unpreserved issue pursuant to RCr 10.26.
Immediately after the sentencing hearing, the trial judge handed copies of the final judgment to counsel for the parties. The judgment was on a pre-printed form and the blanks had been filled in with a typewriter. In addition and despite his objection, appellant was also ordered to pay court costs of $65.00.
KRS 532.050 requires a trial judge to give due consideration to the pre-sentence investigation report and give the defendant "a fair opportunity and a reasonable period of time" to controvert the contents thereof. KRS 532.110(1) requires a determination that "... such multiple sentences shall run concurrently or consecutively as the court shall determine at the time of sentence...." RCr 11.02 requires the court to "consider the possibility of probation or conditional discharge and [the court] shall afford the defendant and his counsel an opportunity to make a statement or statements in the defendant's behalf and to present any information in mitigation of punishment."
The record is clear that the trial judge prepared the final judgment prior to the sentencing hearing....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maynes v. Commonwealth
...correctly upheld the portion of Maynes's sentence imposing those costs. Against this conclusion, Maynes refers us to Edmonson v. Commonwealth, 725 S.W.2d 595 (Ky.1987). In that off-cited opinion, this Court reversed an order imposing KRS 23A.205 costs and held that because KRS 31.110 addres......
-
Rouse v. Commonwealth
...308 S.W.3d 694, 703 (Ky. 2010). Appellant also relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court of Kentucky in Edmonson v. Commonwealth, 725 S.W.2d 595 (Ky. 1987). In Edmonson, the Supreme Court reversed a final judgment in a criminal case where the defendant had pled guilty because the trial ......
-
Smith v. Commonwealth
...defendants, controlled over KRS 23A.205(2), which provides the trial court discretion in imposing court costs. See Edmonson v. Commonwealth, 725 S.W.2d 595, 596 (Ky.1987). Accordingly, we have previously found it to be a palpable error to impose court costs on an indigent defendant. See, e.......
-
McClanahan v. Com.
...crime and the history, character and condition of the defendant." KRS 533.010(2). Appellant directs our attention to Edmonson v. Commonwealth, 725 S.W.2d 595, 596 (Ky.1987), wherein we reversed a final judgment in a criminal case because "the trial judge had either made up her mind as to th......