Kentucky Supreme Court Voids Prisoner’s $10,972 Jail Fee
Striking a rare blow for fairness, the Supreme Court of Kentucky issued a ruling on February 25, 2025, reversing the imposition of $10,972 in jail fees upon Dillian Ford at his criminal sentencing in Carlisle County Circuit Court. Because there was no evidence in the record that the fees were based upon more than an unofficial agreement between Carlisle County and neighboring McCraken County, where Ford was held, the high Court found error in the lack of an officially adopted policy, as required by state law.
Ford was sentenced on November 17, 2022, to a total of 15 years on his underlying charges and fined $10,972 in jail fees for the 422 days he was held in custody prior to sentencing. During the plea colloquy, Ford stipulated that Carlisle County paid McCracken County $26 per day to imprison him.
On appeal, Ford did not question the agreement between the counties. However, he argued that imposition of the fee was error because there was no evidence that either county had a jail reimbursement policy approved by the county’s governing body.
In Capstraw v. Commonwealth, 641 S.W.3d 148 (Ky. 2022), the Court had held that a trial court may not impose jail fees at sentencing without “some evidence presented that a jail fee reimbursement policy has been adopted by the county jailer with approval of the county’s governing body, in accordance with KRS 441.265(2)(a).” The Capstraw court thus also vacated the imposition of jail fees based on the unofficial fee reimbursement policy.
Turning to the merits of Ford’s appeal, the Court found that his stipulation to the inter-county agreement was not a bar to relief. What mattered, the Court said, was that “(a)n agreement between counties concerning reimbursement for prisoners is not the same as a jail reimbursement policy promulgated by the county jailor with the approval of the county’s governing body.” The Court stated that its Capstraw holding “literally meant” that such a promulgation must be demonstrated on the record. When the Commonwealth fails to demonstrate that such a policy exists “with the concomitant approval,” then the state also fails to meet its “evidentiary burden for jail fees … and they cannot be imposed.”
Therefore, imposition of jail fees against Ford was vacated. Before the Court, Ford was represented by Assistant Public Advocates Aaron R. Baker and Kathleen Kallaher Schmidt from the Department of Public Advocacy. See: Ford v. Commonwealth, 709 S.W.3d 203 (Ky. 2025).
Related legal case
Ford v. Commonwealth
| Year | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 709 S.W.3d 203 (Ky. 2025) |
| Level | State Supreme Court |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |