Billy Chadwell v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

Summary

The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision upholding Billy Chadwell’s conviction, sentence, and assessment of $165 in court costs. The Court held that because the trial court had not determined Chadwell was a “poor person” exempt from court costs, the assessment was not an illegal sentence subject to correction on appeal. The Court also explained that the one-year payment limitation in KRS 23A.205(3) applies only when the court establishes an installment plan.

Holdings

1. An assessment of court costs is an illegal sentence subject to correction on appeal only when the defendant has been adjudged a poor person and court costs were assessed contrary to that status. When the trial court neither determined the defendant's poverty status nor was asked to do so, imposing court costs does not constitute a sentencing error.
2. KRS 534.020 did not govern Chadwell's court-cost assessment because, at the time of sentencing, it applied only to criminal fines; the applicable statute was KRS 23A.205.
3. The one-year payment limitation in KRS 23A.205(3) applies only when the sentencing court establishes an installment payment plan. Because no installment plan was ordered, the limitation did not invalidate the court-cost payment deadline.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court's assessment of court costs was illegal because Chadwell was indigent or had been determined to be a poor person under KRS 23A.205(2).
2. Whether the one-year payment limitation in KRS 23A.205(3) invalidated the order requiring payment of court costs after Chadwell's release from prison.
3. Whether the alleged sentencing error could be corrected on appeal despite Chadwell's failure to preserve the issue in the trial court.

Disposition

affirmed