Kayla Brooke Steele v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky
• Decided: April 25, 2025
• Docket: 2024-CA-0129
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

RENDERED: APRIL 25, 2025; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2024-CA-0129-MR

KAYLA BROOKE STEELE APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE LARRY ASHLOCK, JUDGE ACTION NO. 23-CR-00062

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE

OPINION REVERSING AND REMANDING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; ACREE AND EASTON, JUDGES.

THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: Kayla Steele appeals from a restitution order

entered by the Hardin Circuit Court. Appellant argues that the amount she was

ordered to pay was impermissibly inflated and not based on reliable facts. We

agree that the facts used to prove the amount owed in restitution were unreliable;

therefore, we reverse and remand for a new restitution hearing. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Janet Perkins hired Kayla Steele as a caregiver for her mother, Yukiko

Warford. Ms. Warford had a brain injury and dementia and required twenty-four-

hour care. Ms. Steele eventually became a managing caregiver and oversaw four

to five other caregivers providing care for Ms. Warford. Ms. Steele was authorized

to spend money on Ms. Warford’s behalf and had access to Ms. Warford’s bank

accounts, checks, and debit cards.

At some point, Appellant started using drugs and began stealing

money from Ms. Warford. The theft was eventually discovered by Ms. Perkins

and her partner, Dennis Wene. Appellant was indicted on numerous charges

relating to the theft, but eventually pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly

exploiting an adult over $3001 and theft by unlawful taking over $10,000.2 She

was then sentenced to twelve years in prison. The only issue for the trial court to

determine in this case was the amount of restitution owed to Ms. Warford.

Appellant claimed that she stole around $17,000, but Ms. Perkins and Mr. Wene

claimed she stole over $76,000.

A hearing was held on November 20, 2023, where Appellant, Ms.

Perkins, and Mr. Wene testified. Ms. Perkins and Mr. Wene testified that once

1 Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 209.990(5). 2 KRS 514.030(2)(g).

-2- they discovered the theft, they went through Ms. Warford’s bank statements and

identified the charges and withdrawals they believed were fraudulent. Mr. Wene

then organized all the charges from the time of Appellant’s employment on a

spreadsheet and indicated which were believed to be fraudulent. According to the

testimony of Mr. Wene and Ms. Perkins, any charges that came from outside of

Elizabethtown, Kentucky, where Ms. Warford’s residence was located, were

deemed fraudulent because Ms. Warford did not travel outside of Elizabethtown.

Appellant provided testimony and her own spreadsheet to rebut the

Commonwealth’s evidence.

The trial court ultimately ordered Appellant to pay restitution in the

amount of $42,089.75. During the restitution hearing, testimony revealed that

around $13,000 had been reimbursed to Ms. Warford’s bank accounts by the

banks. It was also discovered that around $21,000 had been ordered as restitution

in a case against Appellant in another circuit court. The court subtracted these

amounts from the $76,000 amount Ms. Perkins and Mr. Wene claimed was stolen

by Appellant. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

Appellant’s first argument on appeal is that the trial court ordered her

to pay restitution for more than the unlawful conduct for which she pleaded guilty.

The indictment in this case stated that Appellant committed her crimes “on or

-3- between August 1, 2022, through November 14, 2022.” The plea agreement also

used that same language. There are multiple charges to Ms. Warford’s bank

accounts that were deemed fraudulent that occurred earlier in 2022 and outside the

timeframe set forth in the indictment and plea agreement. Appellant argues that

she should only be required to pay restitution for amounts stolen during August 1,

2022, through November 14, 2022.

This argument was not raised before the trial court; therefore, it is

waived. “The Court of Appeals is without authority to review issues not raised in

or decided by the trial court.” Regional Jail Authority v. Tackett, 770 S.W.2d 225,

228 (Ky. 1989); see also Shelton v. Commonwealth, 928 S.W.2d 817, 818 (Ky.

App. 1996). “[E]rrors to be considered for appellate review must be precisely

preserved and identified in the lower court.” Skaggs v. Assad, by and through

Assad, 712 S.W.2d 947, 950 (Ky. 1986) (citation omitted).

Appellant’s other argument on appeal is that the evidence relied upon

by the trial court was not reliable. We review a decision regarding restitution for

abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Morseman, 379 S.W.3d 144, 147 (Ky.

2012). “The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge’s decision was

arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.”

Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999). “When ordering

restitution, a trial court must base an award on reliable facts.” Wiley v.

-4- Commonwealth, 348 S.W.3d 570, 575 (Ky. 2010) (citation omitted). Also, “the

defendant must have some meaningful opportunity to be heard, and the record

must establish a factual predicate for the restitution order.” Id. (citation omitted).

Here, location was the primary indicator that was relied upon to

determine whether a debit or withdrawal from Ms. Warford’s bank accounts was

fraudulent. Ms. Perkins and Mr. Wene both testified multiple times that charges

which occurred in Elizabethtown were not designated as fraudulent and were not

included in the restitution amount. After reviewing the spreadsheets created by

Mr. Wene, it appears as though this testimony was inaccurate. There are multiple

charges listed on the spreadsheets that are deemed fraudulent, but which occurred

in Elizabethtown.

This contradiction is especially problematic in this case because the

spreadsheets were the primary evidence relied upon to determine the restitution

amount. The testimony of Ms. Perkins and Mr. Wene call into question the

accuracy of the spreadsheets they created. We believe this discrepancy makes the

spreadsheets unreliable; therefore, the trial court’s award of restitution was unfair

and an abuse of discretion.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we reverse and remand for a new restitution

hearing. The new hearing should only be concerned with the sufficiency of the

-5- evidence to support a restitution amount. In addition, we have determined that the

issue regarding restitution amounts outside the August 1, 2022, through November

14, 2022 timeframe was waived; therefore, it cannot be litigated before the trial

court as the issue is res judicata. See Huntzinger v. McCrae, 818 S.W.2d 613, 615

(Ky. App. 1990).

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Shannon Dupree Russell Coleman Frankfort, Kentucky Attorney General of Kentucky

Melissa A. Pile Assistant Attorney General Frankfort, Kentucky

-6-