NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

OPINION

DIXON, JUDGE.

Christopher Hosaflook appeals from an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court imposing upon him a fine of $1,000.00 as a condition of shock probation. It is undisputed that Appellant was indigent during the proceedings below; consequently, the court was without authority to impose a fine. We vacate the portion of the order imposing a fine and remand for entry of a new order consistent with this opinion.

Appellant, represented by a public defender, pled guilty to amended charges of theft by unlawful taking over $500.00 and receiving stolen property over $500.00. Appellant was sentenced to five-years' imprisonment. In a subsequent order granting Appellant's motion for shock probation, the court imposed numerous conditions upon Appellant, including the payment of a $1,000.00 felony fine.1 Appellant then filed a motion to set aside the fine due to his indigent status, which was denied by the trial court. This appeal followed.

The Commonwealth concedes it was erroneous to impose a fine upon Appellant due to his indigency. KRS 534.030(4) prohibits a trial court from imposing a fine "upon any person determined by the court to be indigent pursuant to KRS Chapter 31." KRS 31.120(1)(b) states, in relevant part, "nothing shall prevent appointment of counsel at the earliest necessary proceeding at which the person is entitled to counsel, upon declaration by the person that he or she is needy under the terms of this chapter." Where, as here, an appellant was represented by a public defender at sentencing, "we may assume that the trial judge had already determined that the appellant was indigent." Simpson v. Commonwealth, 889 S.W.2d 781, 784, (Ky. 1994).

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the portion of the order imposing a fine upon Appellant and remand this case for entry of a new order consistent with this opinion.

D. LAMBERT, JUDGE, CONCURS.

THOMPSON, JUDGE, CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.