PHILLIPS (SHANE) VS. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 25, 2009; 10:00 A.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2008-CA-001817-MR
SHANE PHILLIPS
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM CARTER CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE RON JOHNSON, SENIOR JUDGE
ACTION NO. 05-CR-00032
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: COMBS, CHIEF JUDGE; VANMETER, JUDGE; LAMBERT,1
SENIOR JUDGE.
VANMETER, JUDGE: Shane Phillips (Phillips) appeals from the Carter Circuit
Court’s denial of his motion for an evidentiary hearing regarding the accuracy of
1
Senior Judge Joseph E. Lambert sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the Chief Justice
pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and Kentucky Revised Statutes
(KRS) 21.580.
statements contained in the victim impact statement considered by the court during
Phillips’ sentencing phase. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Phillips entered a plea of guilty to the amended charge of criminal
facilitation to commit robbery in the first degree. During sentencing, Phillips
objected to portions of the victim impact statement that he claimed were
inaccurate, particularly the statement identifying Phillips as the “architect” of the
crime. Phillips sought an evidentiary hearing to assess the accuracy of the
statements contained within the victim impact statement. The Commonwealth
responded that a victim impact statement is not a sworn statement and has no
evidentiary merit; rather, it reflects the feelings of the victim(s) and/or their family
member(s) and is not required to be factually accurate.
The court denied Phillips’ motion for a hearing, stating on the record
that it was not particularly concerned with the description of Phillips as the
“architect” of the crime; rather, the statements within the victim impact statement
would be considered only as a showing of the impact of the crime on the victim.
Phillips claimed that this ruling violated his due process rights and that he wished
to preserve the issue on the record for appeal purposes. Thereafter, the court
sentenced Phillips to two years’ imprisonment and levied a fine in accordance with
the Commonwealth’s recommendation.
On appeal, Phillips argues that the trial court erred by denying his
motion for an evidentiary hearing. In particular, he claims that a defendant’s
opportunity to controvert the contents of a presentence investigation (PSI) report
-2-
pursuant to KRS 532.050 applies to a victim impact statement submitted pursuant
to KRS 421.520, so as to afford a defendant the opportunity to also controvert the
contents of a victim impact statement. We disagree.
KRS 532.050 addresses PSI reports or other presentence procedures
relating to felony convictions, including a defendant’s opportunity to controvert the
contents of a PSI report. As stated in KRS 532.050(6),
Before imposing sentence, the court shall advise the
defendant or his or her counsel of the factual contents and
conclusions of any presentence investigation or psychiatric
examinations and afford a fair opportunity and a
reasonable period of time, if the defendant so requests,
to controvert them.
Although KRS 532.050 does not address victim impact statements, Phillips urges
us to apply to victim impact statements the same protections afforded to defendants
in regard to PSI reports.
KRS 421.520 addresses victim impact statements, providing as
follows:
(1) The attorney for the Commonwealth shall notify
the victim that, upon conviction of the defendant, the
victim has the right to submit a written victim impact
statement to the probation officer responsible for
preparing the presentence investigation report for
inclusion in the report or to the court should such a
report be waived by the defendant.
(2) The impact statement may contain, but need not be
limited to, a description of the nature and extent of any
physical, psychological or financial harm suffered by
the victim, the victim’s need for restitution and whether
the victim has applied for or received compensation for
financial loss, and the victim’s recommendation for an
-3-
appropriate sentence.
(3) The victim impact statement shall be considered
by the court prior to any decision on the sentencing
or release, including shock probation, of the defendant.
Unlike KRS 532.050, KRS 421.520 does not specifically afford a defendant an
opportunity to controvert the contents of a victim impact statement. Although
subsection (1) permits a victim impact statement to be included in a PSI report or
submitted by itself, if a defendant waives the PSI report, nothing in either statute
suggests that the rules governing challenges to PSI reports also apply to victim
impact statements. Absent such a provision or case law supporting such an
application, we find that the trial court did not err by declining to afford Phillips
such an opportunity.
In any event, a demonstration that the use of misinformation during
the sentencing phase violated due process would require a defendant to show “that
the evidence was materially false and that the trial judge relied upon it.” U.S. v.
Polselli, 747 F.2d 356, 358 (6th Cir. 1984) (citing Collins v. Buckhoe, 493 F.2d 343
(6th Cir. 1974)). Here, even if the court did err by denying Phillips’ motion for a
hearing, any error that might have occurred was harmless.2 Indeed, the court
specifically indicated it did not rely on the questioned statement when pronouncing
its sentence. Rather, the court generally considered the victim impact statement in
2
Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure 9.24, which addresses harmless error, provides, in part:
“[t]he court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding
that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” Here, the court’s consideration of the
victim impact statement solely as evidence of the impact of the crime on the victim’s family did
not affect the substantial rights of either party.
-4-
conjunction with the PSI report and sentenced Phillips to the agreed-upon
punishment of two years’ imprisonment, which fell within the range provided by
law.
The order of the Carter Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Michael J. Curtis
Ashland, Kentucky
Jack Conway
Attorney General of Kentucky
M. Brandon Roberts
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
-5-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.