(1) In all felony cases, the jury in its initial verdict will make a determination of not
guilty, guilty, guilty but mentally ill, or not guilty by virtue of insanity, and no more.
(2) Upon return of a verdict of guilty or guilty but mentally ill against a defendant, the
court shall conduct a sentencing hearing before the jury, if such case was tried
before a jury. In the hearing the jury will determine the punishment to be imposed
within the range provided elsewhere by law. The jury shall recommend whether the
sentences shall be served concurrently or consecutively.
(a) Evidence may be offered by the Commonwealth relevant to sentencing
including:
1. Minimum parole eligibility, prior convictions of the defendant, both
felony and misdemeanor;
2. The nature of prior offenses for which he was convicted;
3. The date of the commission, date of sentencing, and date of release from
confinement or supervision from all prior offenses;
4. The maximum expiration of sentence as determined by the division of
probation and parole for all such current and prior offenses;
5. The defendant's status if on probation, parole, postincarceration
supervision, conditional discharge, or any other form of legal release;
6. Juvenile court records of adjudications of guilt of a child for an offense
that would be a felony if committed by an adult. Subject to the Kentucky
Rules of Evidence, these records shall be admissible in court at any time
the child is tried as an adult, or after the child becomes an adult, at any
subsequent criminal trial relating to that same person. Juvenile court
records made available pursuant to this section may be used for
impeachment purposes during a criminal trial and may be used during
the sentencing phase of a criminal trial; however, the fact that a juvenile
has been adjudicated delinquent of an offense that would be a felony if
the child had been an adult shall not be used in finding the child to be a
persistent felony offender based upon that adjudication. Release of the
child's treatment, medical, mental, or psychological records is prohibited
unless presented as evidence in Circuit Court. Release of any records
resulting from the child's prior abuse and neglect under Title IV-E or
Title IV-B of the federal Social Security Act is also prohibited; and
7. The impact of the crime upon the victim or victims, as defined in KRS
421.500, including a description of the nature and extent of any physical,
psychological, or financial harm suffered by the victim or victims;
(b) The defendant may introduce evidence in mitigation or in support of leniency;
and
(c) Upon conclusion of the proof, the court shall instruct the jury on the range of
punishment and counsel for the defendant may present arguments followed by
the counsel for the Commonwealth. The jury shall then retire and recommend
a sentence for the defendant.
(3) All hearings held pursuant to this section shall be combined with any hearing
provided for by KRS 532.080.
(4) In the event that the jury is unable to agree as to the sentence or any portion thereof
and so reports to the judge, the judge shall impose the sentence within the range
provided elsewhere by law.
Effective: June 8, 2011
History: Amended 2011 Ky. Acts ch. 2, sec. 95, effective June 8, 2011. -- Amended
2008 Ky. Acts ch. 60, sec. 2, effective July 15, 2008. -- Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch.
606, sec. 111, effective July 15, 1998. -- Amended 1996 Ky. Acts ch. 358, sec. 8,
effective July 15, 1997. -- Created 1986 Ky. Acts ch. 358, sec. 2, effective July 15,
1986.
Legislative Research Commission Note (7/15/96). Under 1996 Ky. Acts ch. 358, sec.
67(1), the amendment of this statute by Section 8 of that Act becomes effective July
15, 1997.
Legislative Research Commission Note (11/19/91). Pursuant to KRS 7.136(1), the
Reviser of Statutes has made a technical correction to correct a manifest clerical or
typographical error in subsection (2) of this statute. The text now shown as "...before
a jury. In the hearing the jury..." appeared in 1986 Acts ch. 358, sec. 2, as "...before a
jury in the hearing the jury..."
Notes of Decisions
St. Clair v. Commonwealth, 140 S.W.3d 510 (Ky. 2004).
· cites it 24× “080(2) & (3) of Kentucky's Persistent Felony Offender (PFO) statute, Melson v.”
Manns v. Commonwealth, 80 S.W.3d 439 (Ky. 2002).
· cites it 39× “2d 794 (1987), when considering application of the original version of KRS 532.055 to a defendant whose offense had been committed prior to the statute's enactment: The act deals with procedures at trial.”
Soto v. Commonwealth, 139 S.W.3d 827 (Ky. 2004).
· cites it 18× “" [43] Foley, however, predated a significant 1998 amendment to KRS 532.055, which deleted a provision that read: "This section shall not apply to sentencing hearings provided for in KRS 532.”
Commonwealth v. Reneer, 734 S.W.2d 794 (Ky. 1987).
· cites it 20× “The Majority Opinion states, and I agree, that "KRS 532.055 is a legislative attempt to invade the rule making prerogative of the Supreme Court," and that "it violates the separation of powers doctrine enunciated in § 28 of the Kentucky Constitution.”
St. Clair v. Commonwealth, 451 S.W.3d 597 (Ky. 2014).
· cites it 13× “025, KRS 532.055, and Mullikan v. Commonwealth, 341 S.”
Lawson v. Commonwealth, 85 S.W.3d 571 (Ky. 2002).
· cites it 18× “" [31] We believe that to declare the error in this case harmless would effectively delete KRS 532.055(2)'s requirement that "[t]he jury shall recommend whether the sentences shall be served concurrently or consecutively" [32] and would ignore the jury's important role in the…”
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Conway v. Thompson, 300 S.W.3d 152 (Ky. 2010).
· cites it 12× “KRS 532.055 provides that evidence may be offered relevant to sentencing, including information regarding minimum parole eligibility and the minimum expiration of sentences.”
Boone v. Commonwealth, 780 S.W.2d 615 (Ky. 1989).
· cites it 21× “The sole issue on this appeal is the sentencing procedure prescribed by KRS 532.055, which procedure was followed by the circuit court.”
Fox v. Grayson, 317 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2010).
· cites it 6× “[37] On appeal, Cornelison argued the officer's good-time-credit testimony was improper because KRS 532.055 listed several items of evidence that the Commonwealth could offer relevant to sentencing; but that statute did not mention good-time credit.”
Jackson v. Commonwealth, 481 S.W.3d 794 (Ky. 2016).
· cites it 11× “” Nevertheless, we declined to hold KRS 532.055 unconstitutional, and “we accepted] its provisions for the time being under the principle of comi *800 ty.”
Huff v. Commonwealth, 763 S.W.2d 106 (Ky. 1988).
· cites it 17× “At a pre-trial hearing, appellant attacked the constitutionality of KRS 532.055 and KRS 439.3401, and filed proper motion to have these two statutes declared unconstitutional.”
Cuzick v. Commonwealth, 276 S.W.3d 260 (Ky. 2009).
· cites it 11× “Appellant claims that by reading the description of the offense, and in particular mentioning that Appellant used a baseball bat to break the glass on the front door of a commercial building to gain entry, the Commonwealth *263 exceeded the scope of KRS 532.055. Appellant…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.055(1) — 3 cases
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.055(1)(a)(7) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.055(2) — 40 cases
Soto v. Commonwealth, 139 S.W.3d 827 (Ky. 2004).
“" [43] Foley, however, predated a significant 1998 amendment to KRS 532.055, which deleted a provision that read: "This section shall not apply to sentencing hearings provided for in KRS 532.”
Lawson v. Commonwealth, 85 S.W.3d 571 (Ky. 2002).
“" [31] We believe that to declare the error in this case harmless would effectively delete KRS 532.055(2)'s requirement that "[t]he jury shall recommend whether the sentences shall be served concurrently or consecutively" [32] and would ignore the jury's important role in the…”
St. Clair v. Commonwealth, 140 S.W.3d 510 (Ky. 2004).
“080(2) & (3) of Kentucky's Persistent Felony Offender (PFO) statute, Melson v.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.055(2)(a) — 74 cases
Manns v. Commonwealth, 80 S.W.3d 439 (Ky. 2002).
“2d 794 (1987), when considering application of the original version of KRS 532.055 to a defendant whose offense had been committed prior to the statute's enactment: The act deals with procedures at trial.”
St. Clair v. Commonwealth, 140 S.W.3d 510 (Ky. 2004).
“080(2) & (3) of Kentucky's Persistent Felony Offender (PFO) statute, Melson v.”
Jackson v. Commonwealth, 481 S.W.3d 794 (Ky. 2016).
“” Nevertheless, we declined to hold KRS 532.055 unconstitutional, and “we accepted] its provisions for the time being under the principle of comi *800 ty.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.055(2)(a)(1) — 10 cases
Commonwealth v. Reneer, 734 S.W.2d 794 (Ky. 1987).
“The Majority Opinion states, and I agree, that "KRS 532.055 is a legislative attempt to invade the rule making prerogative of the Supreme Court," and that "it violates the separation of powers doctrine enunciated in § 28 of the Kentucky Constitution.”
Huff v. Commonwealth, 763 S.W.2d 106 (Ky. 1988).
“At a pre-trial hearing, appellant attacked the constitutionality of KRS 532.055 and KRS 439.3401, and filed proper motion to have these two statutes declared unconstitutional.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.055(2)(a)(2) — 15 cases
Cuzick v. Commonwealth, 276 S.W.3d 260 (Ky. 2009).
“Appellant claims that by reading the description of the offense, and in particular mentioning that Appellant used a baseball bat to break the glass on the front door of a commercial building to gain entry, the Commonwealth *263 exceeded the scope of KRS 532.055. Appellant…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.055(2)(a)(3) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.055(2)(a)(4) — 3 cases
Commonwealth v. Reneer, 734 S.W.2d 794 (Ky. 1987).
“The Majority Opinion states, and I agree, that "KRS 532.055 is a legislative attempt to invade the rule making prerogative of the Supreme Court," and that "it violates the separation of powers doctrine enunciated in § 28 of the Kentucky Constitution.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.055(2)(a)(5) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.055(2)(a)(6) — 2 cases
Manns v. Commonwealth, 80 S.W.3d 439 (Ky. 2002).
“2d 794 (1987), when considering application of the original version of KRS 532.055 to a defendant whose offense had been committed prior to the statute's enactment: The act deals with procedures at trial.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.055(2)(a)(7) — 17 cases
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.055(2)(a)(l) — 6 cases
Commonwealth v. Reneer, 734 S.W.2d 794 (Ky. 1987).
“The Majority Opinion states, and I agree, that "KRS 532.055 is a legislative attempt to invade the rule making prerogative of the Supreme Court," and that "it violates the separation of powers doctrine enunciated in § 28 of the Kentucky Constitution.”
Huff v. Commonwealth, 763 S.W.2d 106 (Ky. 1988).
“At a pre-trial hearing, appellant attacked the constitutionality of KRS 532.055 and KRS 439.3401, and filed proper motion to have these two statutes declared unconstitutional.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.055(2)(b) — 17 cases
St. Clair v. Commonwealth, 140 S.W.3d 510 (Ky. 2004).
“080(2) & (3) of Kentucky's Persistent Felony Offender (PFO) statute, Melson v.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.055(2)(c) — 3 cases
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.055(2)(x)(7) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.055(3) — 14 cases
St. Clair v. Commonwealth, 140 S.W.3d 510 (Ky. 2004).
“080(2) & (3) of Kentucky's Persistent Felony Offender (PFO) statute, Melson v.”
Commonwealth v. Reneer, 734 S.W.2d 794 (Ky. 1987).
“The Majority Opinion states, and I agree, that "KRS 532.055 is a legislative attempt to invade the rule making prerogative of the Supreme Court," and that "it violates the separation of powers doctrine enunciated in § 28 of the Kentucky Constitution.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.055(4) — 9 cases
Lawson v. Commonwealth, 85 S.W.3d 571 (Ky. 2002).
“" [31] We believe that to declare the error in this case harmless would effectively delete KRS 532.055(2)'s requirement that "[t]he jury shall recommend whether the sentences shall be served concurrently or consecutively" [32] and would ignore the jury's important role in the…”
Boone v. Commonwealth, 780 S.W.2d 615 (Ky. 1989).
“The sole issue on this appeal is the sentencing procedure prescribed by KRS 532.055, which procedure was followed by the circuit court.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.055(5) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.055(6) — 2 cases
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.055(8) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.055(a) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.055(a)(2) — 2 cases
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.055(a)(3) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.055(b) — 1 case
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.