Exceptions.
(1) Court costs for a criminal case in the Circuit Court shall be one hundred dollars
($100).
(2) The taxation of court costs against a defendant, upon conviction in a case,
shall be mandatory and shall not be subject to probation, suspension,
proration, deduction, or other form of nonimposition in the terms of a plea
bargain or otherwise, unless the court finds that the defendant is a poor person
as defined by KRS 453.190(2) and that he or she is unable to pay court costs
and will be unable to pay the court costs in the foreseeable future.
(3) If the court finds that the defendant does not meet the standard articulated in
subsection (2) of this section and that the defendant is nonetheless unable to
pay the full amount of the court costs, fees, or fines at the time of sentencing,
then the court may establish an installment payment plan in accordance with
KRS 534.020.
Effective:June 29, 2017
History: Amended 2017 Ky. Acts ch. 158, sec. 2, effective June 29, 2017. --
Amended 2002 Ky. Acts ch. 183, sec. 1, effective August 1, 2002. -- Amended
2000 Ky. Acts ch. 328, sec. 1, effective July 14, 2000. -- Amended 1998 Ky.
Acts ch. 606, sec. 43, effective July 15, 1998. -- Amended 1984 Ky. Acts ch.
321, sec. 2, effective July 13, 1984. -- Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 200, sec. 5,
effective June 17, 1978. -- Created 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 22, sec.
58, effective January 2, 1978.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
54
cases (
20 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case:
Maynes v. Commonwealth, 361 S.W.3d 922 (Ky. 2012).
Maynes v. Commonwealth, 361 S.W.3d 922 (Ky. 2012).
· cites it 38× “Should “needy” persons under the latter statute automatically be immune from the court costs imposed by KRS 23A.205? The Court of Appeals said they should not and upheld an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court imposing court costs on Desean Maynes.”
Jones v. Commonwealth, 527 S.W.3d 820 (Ky. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 11× “Jones contends the trial court erred in imposing any court costs as a violation of KRS 23A.205, and in the alternative, he challenges the inclusion of $30.”
Goncalves v. Commonwealth, 404 S.W.3d 180 (Ky. 2013).
· cites it 4× “In reaching this conclusion, the Maynes Court examined KRS 23A.205, which provides that a person convicted of a crime in Circuit Court shall pay court costs of $100.”
Donald Howard v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 496 S.W.3d 471 (Ky. 2016).
· cites it 3× “26 KRS 23A.205 states that court costs may not be waived unless the trial court finds that the defendant is a “poor person” under KRS 453.”
Nunn v. Commonwealth, 461 S.W.3d 741 (Ky. 2015).
· cites it 4× “2012) we distinguished the “poor person” standard in KRS 23A.205, 4 which directs the exemption from court costs, from the “needy person” standard in KRS 31.”
Buster v. Commonwealth, 381 S.W.3d 294 (Ky. 2012).
· cites it 6× “Thus, KRS 23A.205 contemplates three distinct and mutually exclusive classifications of persons: (1) those who are able to *305 pay their costs, (2) “poor persons” who are not required to pay court costs at all, and (3) those who are not “poor persons,” yet nevertheless cannot…”
Wiley v. Commonwealth, 348 S.W.3d 570 (Ky. 2010).
· cites it 3× “KRS 23A.205(2). We review unpreserved issues under the palpable error standard of RCr 10.”
Travis v. Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 456 (Ky. 2010).
· cites it 2× “040 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.”
Sevier v. Commonwealth, 434 S.W.3d 443 (Ky. 2014).
· cites it 3× “(holding that merely because a defendant is "needy” and, thus, entitled to the services of a public defender, he is not necessarily exempt from paying court costs because a determination that a party is "needy” requires less serious financial hardship than that which must be…”
Roe v. Commonwealth, 493 S.W.3d 814 (Ky. 2015).
“KRS 23A.205 states that court costs may not be waived unless the court finds that the defendant is a “poor person” under KRS 453.”
Smith v. Commonwealth, 361 S.W.3d 908 (Ky. 2012).
· cites it 2× “190(2), and (2) unable to pay court costs now, and will be unable to pay court costs in the foreseeable future.”
Smith v. Commonwealth, 370 S.W.3d 871 (Ky. 2012).
· cites it 2× “We also conclude that the trial court erred by imposing court costs against Appellant under KRS 23A.205(2) without determining if he was “poor person,” as that term is defined in KRS 453.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 23A.205(1) — 2 cases
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 23A.205(2) — 36 cases
Wiley v. Commonwealth, 348 S.W.3d 570 (Ky. 2010).
“KRS 23A.205(2). We review unpreserved issues under the palpable error standard of RCr 10.”
Travis v. Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 456 (Ky. 2010).
“040 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.”
Buster v. Commonwealth, 381 S.W.3d 294 (Ky. 2012).
“Thus, KRS 23A.205 contemplates three distinct and mutually exclusive classifications of persons: (1) those who are able to *305 pay their costs, (2) “poor persons” who are not required to pay court costs at all, and (3) those who are not “poor persons,” yet nevertheless cannot…”
Sevier v. Commonwealth, 434 S.W.3d 443 (Ky. 2014).
“(holding that merely because a defendant is "needy” and, thus, entitled to the services of a public defender, he is not necessarily exempt from paying court costs because a determination that a party is "needy” requires less serious financial hardship than that which must be…”
Smith v. Commonwealth, 370 S.W.3d 871 (Ky. 2012).
“We also conclude that the trial court erred by imposing court costs against Appellant under KRS 23A.205(2) without determining if he was “poor person,” as that term is defined in KRS 453.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 23A.205(3) — 9 cases
Jones v. Commonwealth, 527 S.W.3d 820 (Ky. Ct. App. 2017).
“Jones contends the trial court erred in imposing any court costs as a violation of KRS 23A.205, and in the alternative, he challenges the inclusion of $30.”
Buster v. Commonwealth, 381 S.W.3d 294 (Ky. 2012).
“Thus, KRS 23A.205 contemplates three distinct and mutually exclusive classifications of persons: (1) those who are able to *305 pay their costs, (2) “poor persons” who are not required to pay court costs at all, and (3) those who are not “poor persons,” yet nevertheless cannot…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.