Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 532
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 532.115 (2026)

Concurrent sentencing with federal sentencing or another state's felony

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

sentencing. The court in sentencing a person convicted of a felony, shall be authorized to run the sentence concurrent with any federal sentence received by that defendant for a federal crime and any sentence received by that defendant in another state for a felony offense. The time spent in federal custody and the time spent in custody in another state under the concurrent sentencing shall count as time spent in state custody; but the federal custody and custody in another state shall not include time spent on probation or parole or constraint incidental to release on bail. If the court does not specify that its sentence is to run concurrent with a specific federal sentence or sentence of another state, the sentence shall not run concurrent with any federal sentence or sentence of another state. Effective: July 14, 1992 History: Amended 1992 Ky. Acts ch. 445, sec. 13, effective July 14, 1992. -- Created 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 78, sec. 8, effective June 17, 1978.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1980–2010 · leading case: Gavel v. Commonwealth, 674 S.W.2d 953 (Ky. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gavel v. Commonwealth, 674 S.W.2d 953 (Ky. 1984). · cites it 2× “) Movant argues that KRS 532.115 is controlling in this situation rather than the above cited statute.”
Brock v. Sowders, 610 S.W.2d 591 (Ky. 1980). “” KRS 532.115 authorizes Kentucky courts to run their sentences concurrently with federal sentences, that is, to equate federal custody with state custody.”
Ware v. Commonwealth, 326 S.W.3d 464 (Ky. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “040(3) and KRS 532.115 2 controlled. Id. Similarly, for purposes of revoking Appellant’s probation, we also conclude that KRS 533.”
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.