review for palpable error in Kentucky

2020As to this Court’s review for palpable error, we have held: “Absent extreme circumstances amounting to a substantial miscarriage of justice, an appellate court will not engage in palpable error review pursuant to RCr 10.26 unless such a request is made and briefed by the appellant.” Shepherd v. Commonwealth, 251 S.W.3d 309, 316 (Ky. 2008).

2020As to this Court’s review for palpable error, we have held: “Absent extreme circumstances amounting to a substantial miscarriage of justice, an appellate court will not engage in palpable error review pursuant to RCr 10.26 unless such a request is made and briefed by the appellant.” Shepherd v. Commonwealth, 251 S.W.3d 309, 316 (Ky. 2008).

2020The Supreme Court of Kentucky defined a review for palpable error in Schoenbachler v. Commonwealth, 95 S.W.3d 830, 836 (Ky. 2003), as follows: A palpable error is one of that [sic] “affects the substantial rights of a party” and will result in “manifest injustice” if not considered by the court, and “[w]hat it really boils down to is that if upon a consideration of the whole case this court does not believe there is a substantial possibility that the result would have been any different, the irregularity will be held nonprejudicial.” (Footnotes omitted); see also Miller v. Commonwealth, 283 S.

2018In Schoenbachler v. Commonwealth , 95 S.W.3d 830 , 836 (Ky. 2003), the Supreme Court defined a review for palpable error as follows: A palpable error is one of that "affects the substantial rights of a party" and will result in "manifest injustice" if not considered by the court, and "[w]hat it really boils down to is that if upon a consideration of the whole case this court does not believe there is a substantial possibility that the result would have been any different, the irregularity will be held nonprejudicial." (Footnotes omitted.) Sykes contends that it would be manifestly unjust to be

2024However, our Supreme Court has held that “[i]f a trial judge was not asked at sentencing to determine the defendant’s poverty status and did not otherwise presume the defendant to be an indigent or poor person before imposing court costs, then there 9 KRS 534.040(4) provides that “[f]ines required by this section shall not be imposed upon any person determined by the court to be indigent pursuant to KRS Chapter 31.” -21- is no error to correct on appeal.” Trigg v. Commonwealth, 460 S.W.3d 322, 333 (Ky. 2015) (quoting Spicer v. Commonwealth, 442 S.W.3d 26, 35 (Ky. 2014)).

2024However, our Supreme Court has held that “[i]f a trial judge was not asked at sentencing to determine the defendant’s poverty status and did not otherwise presume the defendant to be an indigent or poor person before imposing court costs, then there 9 KRS 534.040(4) provides that “[f]ines required by this section shall not be imposed upon any person determined by the court to be indigent pursuant to KRS Chapter 31.” -21- is no error to correct on appeal.” Trigg v. Commonwealth, 460 S.W.3d 322, 333 (Ky. 2015) (quoting Spicer v. Commonwealth, 442 S.W.3d 26, 35 (Ky. 2014)).

2021“However, ‘the impact of having an EPO or DVO entered improperly, hastily, or without a valid basis can have a devastating effect on the alleged perpetrator.’” Id. (quoting Wright v. Wright, 181 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Ky. App. 2005)).

2021RCr 10.26. 32 Williams v. Commonwealth, 810 S.W.2d 511, 513 (Ky. 1991). 33 341 S.W.3d 99 , 109 (Ky. 2011). 34 Id. 27 The exhibits at issue here clearly violate this Court’s bright line rule.

2021Oakley asserts this claim is preserved by his counsel’s request that his probation be continued and by the fact these findings are mandated by KRS 439.3106.6 The Commonwealth disagrees, and citing Lainhart v. Commonwealth, 534 S.W.3d 234, 237 (Ky. App. 2017), argues Oakley was required to specifically request additional findings to preserve this 6 In the alternative, Oakley requested a review for palpable error. -4- claim.

2020The Supreme Court of Kentucky defined a review for palpable error in Schoenbachler v. Commonwealth, 95 S.W.3d 830, 836 (Ky. 2003), as follows: A palpable error is one of that [sic] “affects the substantial rights of a party” and will result in “manifest injustice” if not considered by the court, and “[w]hat it really boils down to is that if upon a consideration of the whole case this court does not believe there is a substantial possibility that the result would have been any different, the irregularity will be held nonprejudicial.” (Footnotes omitted); see also Miller v. Commonwealth, 283 S.

2020See Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 61.02; Elwell v. Stone, 799 S.W.2d 46, 48 (Ky. App. 1990). “[T]he required showing is probability of a different result or error so fundamental as to threaten a [party’s] -14- entitlement to due process of law.” Martin v. Commonwealth, 207 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Ky. 2006).

2020See Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 61.02; Elwell v. Stone, 799 S.W.2d 46, 48 (Ky. App. 1990). “[T]he required showing is probability of a different result or error so fundamental as to threaten a [party’s] -14- entitlement to due process of law.” Martin v. Commonwealth, 207 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Ky. 2006).