 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Battoe v. Commonwealth8/25/2005
run concurrently or consecutively); Dotson v. Commonwealth, 740 S.W.2d 930, 932 (Ky. 1987) (same). In fact, where, as here, a jury recommends an unlawful sentence, the trial court is required to modify the sentence "to conform to the law." Neace, 978 S.W.2d at 322. Because the trial court properly corrected Appellant's sentence, we are unable to conclude that Appellant suffered manifest injustice.
It also bears emphasis that both the prosecutor and Appellant's trial counsel informed the jury that twenty years of imprisonment was the statutory maximum penalty that Appellant could face, and that in spite of this knowledge, the jury recommended that Appellant be sentenced to a total of forty years of imprisonment. For this reason, our holding that palpable error did not occur is entirely consistent with the principle that "a jury's recommendation as to concurrent or consecutive sentencing is far from meaningless or pro forma, and that the jury's recommendation in this regard has significance, meaning, and importance." Lawson v. Commonwealth, 85 S.W.3d 571, 581 (Ky. 2002) (internal quotation omitted). See also Stoker v. Commonwealth, 828 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Ky. 1992); Ice v. Commonwealth, 667 S.W.2d 671, 676 (Ky. 1984). In Lawson, we found it necessary to remand for a new sentencing hearing where an evidentiary error "distort the jury's conception of the available sentencing range," and where the jury recommended a sentence at the midpoint of what it perceived to be the correct sentencing range. Lawson, 85 S.W.3d at 580-82. Because of these two factors, it was impossible in Lawson to determine what the jury would have recommended had it possessed the correct information. In contrast, the jury in the case sub iudice was informed of the correct statutory minimum and maximum. Moreover, unlike the Lawson jury, this jury's recommendation was not at the midpoint of its perceived sentencing range. Instead, this jury recommended that Appellant be sentenced to a total of forty years, which, if it intended to disregard the statutory limits set forth in KRS 532.110(1)(c) and KRS 532.080(6)(b), would be the maximum possible penalty for four Class C felony convictions. Thus, in contrast to the situation that occurred in Lawson, there is no doubt as to this jury's intent that Appellant be sentenced to the statutory maximum of twenty years of imprisonment. Because the trial court imposed a lawful twenty-year sentence that gave effect to the jury's intent and did not detract from the "significance, meaning, and importance" of the jury's recommendation, Appellant was not denied his right to a fair sentencing hearing. No palpable error occurred.
Accordingly, the judgment of convictions and the sentences imposed by the McCracken Circuit Court are AFFIRMED.
All concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|