Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
JAMES MOODY APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
OPINIONVACATING AND REMANDING
James Moody appeals from an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court entered on July 6, 2010, that denied his motion to waive court costs and a felony fine ordinarily required by the provisions of Kentucky Revised Statute[s] (KRS) 534.030. After our review, we vacate the court's imposition of the fine and its assessment of court costs.
In October 2009, Moody was indicted on the charge of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree. At his arraignment, counsel was appointed to represent him.
On April 19, 2010, Moody pleaded guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). In exchange for his guilty plea, the Commonwealth recommended a sentence of three-years' imprisonment. At Moody's sentencing, the trial court denied his request for probation but sentenced him in accordance with the Commonwealth's recommendation. The court also ordered Moody to pay court costs and a felony fine of $1,000.00. It denied Moody's subsequent motion to waive the fine and costs. This appeal followed.
Moody contends that the trial court's imposition of the felony fine and the assessment of court costs were improper because he was indigent at the time of sentencing. KRS 534.030(4) provides that fines “shall not be imposed upon any person determined by the court to be indigent pursuant to KRS Chapter 31․” Additionally, the Supreme Court of Kentucky in Travis v. Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 456 (Ky.2010), clearly reiterated that statutory provision. The Commonwealth candidly concedes the issue in light of the statutory provision and case law.
Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the order of the Jefferson Circuit Court which imposed court costs and a fine upon the defendant, and we remand for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.
ALL CONCUR.
COMBS, JUDGE:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: NO. 2010–CA–001452–MR
Decided: June 24, 2011
Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)