Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Bradley Williams, an inmate, filed a Notice of Appeal from the Hardin Circuit Court's dismissal of his RCr 11.42 motion to vacate his sentence. He claims to have filed the notice and subsequent responses on time under the Prison Mailbox Rule, but the Court of Appeals did not receive them timely, leading to the dismissal of his appeal. Williams did not receive the dismissal order until months later, after the deadline for filing a motion for discretionary review had passed. He then filed a motion for reconsideration and two CR 60.02 motions, all of which were returned for various procedural deficiencies.The Hardin Circuit Court dismissed Williams' RCr 11.42 motion on November 28, 2023. Williams filed his Notice of Appeal on December 20, 2023, but it was not received until January 9, 2024, and filed on January 17, 2024. The Court of Appeals issued a show cause order on January 22, 2024, and dismissed the appeal on March 6, 2024, for untimeliness. Williams filed a motion for reconsideration on July 30, 2024, which was returned, as were his subsequent CR 60.02 motions.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and denied Williams' petition for a writ of mandamus, stating that he has an available remedy at the Court of Appeals. The court held that Williams could file a motion to reinstate his appeal, demonstrating compliance with the Prison Mailbox Rule through prison mail logs. The court emphasized that the Court of Appeals should determine whether Williams complied with the rule and may conduct a hearing or delegate the matter to the trial court. The writ of mandamus was denied, but Williams was allowed to seek reinstatement of his appeal. View "WILLIAMS V. THOMPSON" on Justia Law

Alyssa Baum and Justin Aldava have a child, H.A., born in Texas in June 2019. Baum and H.A. moved to Kentucky in November 2020 to escape domestic violence from Aldava. Baum filed for an Emergency Protective Order (EPO) and temporary custody in Jefferson Family Court, recounting an incident of domestic violence in October 2020. The court granted the EPO and later a Domestic Violence Order (DVO) after a hearing, despite Aldava not being served until April 2021. Aldava filed for custody in Texas, but the Texas court did not assert jurisdiction.The Jefferson Family Court held a hearing in April 2021 and issued a DVO, granting Baum temporary custody and prohibiting Aldava from contacting Baum and H.A. Aldava later moved to dismiss the DVO for lack of personal jurisdiction, which the family court denied. The Court of Appeals ruled that the family court lacked personal jurisdiction over Aldava and that the DVO could not impose affirmative relief, such as temporary custody or firearm restrictions.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and held that Kentucky courts could issue DVOs protecting petitioners and their children from domestic violence, even without personal jurisdiction over non-resident respondents. The court affirmed that Kentucky had temporary emergency jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) to grant temporary custody. The court also ruled that the DVO's restrictions on Aldava's firearm possession within Kentucky were valid and that entering the DVO into the Law Information Network of Kentucky (LINK) did not violate due process.The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the family court's DVO in part, reversed the Court of Appeals' decision in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "BAUM V. ALDAVA" on Justia Law

Elvis Wynn was convicted by a Knox County jury of first-degree bail jumping and being a first-degree persistent felony offender (PFO) after failing to appear at an October 2022 sentencing hearing for previous charges. The Knox Circuit Court sentenced him to twenty years of imprisonment based on the jury's recommendation. Wynn appealed the convictions.Previously, in September 2022, Wynn had pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, operating a motor vehicle under the influence, and second-degree PFO. He was released on home incarceration and ordered to appear for sentencing in October 2022, which he failed to do. Consequently, he was indicted on new charges of first-degree bail jumping and first-degree PFO. After being arrested in February 2023, he received a seven-year sentence for the original charges. In September 2023, a jury trial was held for the new charges, resulting in his conviction and the twenty-year sentence.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed Wynn's appeal, where he argued that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his prior felony charges and that his twenty-year sentence violated the statutory sentencing cap. The court found that while the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the video of Wynn's prior court appearance, this error was harmless given the nature of the charges and the compelling evidence against him.Regarding the sentencing issue, the court distinguished Wynn's case from Kimmel v. Commonwealth, noting that Wynn's sentences arose from separate indictments and trials. Therefore, the statutory sentencing cap did not apply, and the trial court correctly ordered the sentences to run consecutively, resulting in an aggregate sentence exceeding twenty years. The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the judgment of the Knox Circuit Court. View "WYNN V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY" on Justia Law

Darryl Ellery pled guilty to first-degree assault and was sentenced to five years in prison, probated for five years, with a restitution order of $305.14 to be paid monthly. In January 2017, a probation officer recommended revoking Ellery’s probation for absconding, and a warrant was issued. The warrant was served in October 2021, and at a November 15, 2021, hearing, the court granted a continuance but did not extend Ellery’s probation. At a subsequent hearing, Ellery argued the court lost jurisdiction as his probation expired in June 2021 without extension. The court rejected this and revoked his probation.Ellery appealed, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals held that the trial court lost jurisdiction when it failed to extend Ellery’s probation at the November 15, 2021, hearing. The court also rejected the Commonwealth’s argument to adopt the fugitive tolling doctrine, citing separation of powers and lack of legislative enactment.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case. The Commonwealth argued for reinstating the revocation, suggesting the court should adopt the fugitive tolling doctrine or reinterpret KRS 533.020(4). Ellery countered that the appeal was moot as he completed his sentence and argued against adopting the fugitive tolling doctrine.The Supreme Court of Kentucky held that the appeal was not moot under the public interest exception. The court reaffirmed its interpretation of KRS 533.020(4) from Commonwealth v. Tapp, which requires a duly entered court order to extend probation. The court declined to adopt the fugitive tolling doctrine, citing legislative intent and separation of powers. The court concluded that the circuit court lost jurisdiction when it failed to extend Ellery’s probation at the November 15, 2021, hearing, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision. View "COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY V. ELLERY" on Justia Law

Jason Earlywine was employed as a teacher by the Board of Education of Paris Independent School District (BEP) from August 2007 to June 2019. In 2011, a student accused him of inappropriate conduct, leading to his placement on paid administrative leave, which was later changed to unpaid leave. He faced a criminal charge of Sexual Abuse in the First Degree, but the trial court granted him a directed verdict in January 2015, and the charge was expunged. Earlywine was reinstated in February 2015 but was terminated in 2019 for unspecified reasons. In 2020, he sued BEP to recover lost wages during his unpaid leave.The Bourbon Circuit Court initially handled the case, determining that BEP was within the waiver of immunity under KRS 45A.245(1) but transferred the case to Franklin Circuit Court due to venue appropriateness. BEP appealed, arguing governmental immunity and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Court of Appeals ruled that BEP's immunity was waived under KRS 45A.245(1) but concluded that Earlywine's failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case, affirming that BEP is subject to the waiver of immunity under KRS 45A.245(1). However, it reversed the Court of Appeals' conclusion regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies, stating that this issue is subject to exceptions and should not have been addressed on interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Court remanded the case to Franklin Circuit Court for further proceedings, allowing Earlywine to argue any applicable exceptions to the exhaustion requirement. View "BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PARIS, KENTUCKY V. EARLYWINE" on Justia Law

Jennifer Albright, individually and as administratrix of the estate of her deceased son David Albright, filed a lawsuit against the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) following David's death. David was swept into a drainage pipe in their backyard during a rainstorm and subsequently died from his injuries. The drainage system, including the pipe, was owned by MSD. Albright alleged that MSD was negligent in maintaining the drainage system and failing to warn of its dangers, particularly by not installing a grate over the pipe entrance.The Jefferson Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of MSD, finding that MSD was entitled to municipal immunity under the Claims Against Local Governments Act (CALGA). The court reasoned that MSD's decision not to install grates was a discretionary act protected by CALGA. Albright appealed, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's decision, holding that MSD was not entitled to immunity under the facts of the case.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that MSD, while subject to CALGA, was not entitled to immunity because the alleged negligent acts were ministerial in nature, not discretionary. The court emphasized that municipalities have a ministerial duty to non-negligently maintain and repair their sewer systems. The court also found that MSD's decision not to install a grate or warn of the pipe's dangers did not arise from its legislative or quasi-legislative authority. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "LOUISVILLE & JEFFERSON COUNTY METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT V. ALBRIGHT" on Justia Law

Walter Bedford Jr., an attorney admitted to practice law in 1974, prepared a will for Clara Howard Jackson in 2016, naming himself as executor and Margaret Hayes as the sole beneficiary. After Jackson's death in 2019, Bedford delayed filing the probate petition and missed court dates. He was eventually appointed executor but failed to manage the estate properly, writing checks to himself for unearned fees and depleting the estate's funds. Hayes, the beneficiary, had to hire another attorney to remove Bedford as executor and filed a bar complaint against him.The Inquiry Commission issued a three-count charge against Bedford for failing to act with diligence, failing to safekeep the estate property, and failing to return estate funds after removal as executor. Bedford admitted to these violations. He requested to be placed on Honorary Membership Inactive Status and proposed a negotiated sanction of a public reprimand and repayment of the unearned fees.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the proposed sanction and found it appropriate. The Court noted similar cases where public reprimands and repayments were ordered for comparable misconduct. Considering Bedford's substantial experience, lack of prior discipline, personal hardships, and remorse, the Court concluded that a public reprimand and repayment of the unearned fee were suitable sanctions.The Supreme Court of Kentucky publicly reprimanded Bedford and ordered him to repay $5,979.00 to the estate within one year. Bedford was also directed to pay the costs associated with the disciplinary proceedings. View "In re Bedford" on Justia Law

Attorney Jon Rhyan Fritz was admitted to practice law in Kentucky in 1998. He was retained by client Vera Williams to pursue a wrongful termination claim against her employer, House of Bread and Peace (HBP). Williams paid Fritz a $3,500 flat fee, which he deposited into his general business account without a written advance fee agreement. Fritz failed to provide billing statements or memoranda explaining how he was earning the fee. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigated Williams's case but ultimately declined to pursue it further. Fritz did not respond to Williams's subsequent emails or requests for meetings, and no lawsuit was filed against HBP within the statute of limitations.Williams filed a Bar Complaint against Fritz, leading the Office of Bar Counsel (OBC) to open the matter for informal resolution. Fritz responded to initial inquiries but failed to provide Williams's client file as requested. The Inquiry Commission charged Fritz with multiple violations of the Supreme Court Rules (SCR), including lack of diligence, communication, and safekeeping of property. Fritz did not respond to the formal Charge, and attempts to serve him were unsuccessful, leading to constructive service via the Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) Executive Director.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and found that Fritz failed to answer the Charge or participate in the disciplinary process. The court granted the OBC's motion to indefinitely suspend Fritz from practicing law in Kentucky. Fritz is required to notify all courts and clients of his suspension, cancel pending advertisements, and take steps to protect his clients' interests. The suspension order takes effect twenty days after its entry. View "In re Fritz" on Justia Law

A father was found to have neglected his child by the Calloway Circuit Court after a school resource officer (SRO) detected the odor of marijuana emanating from the father's vehicle during a school drop-off. The child, who was six years old, was also found to have behavioral issues at school and tested positive for marijuana exposure. The father tested positive for marijuana, methamphetamine, and oxycodone, although he had a prescription for the latter. The family court concluded that the father’s substance use created a risk of physical injury to the child.The father appealed the decision to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, which reversed the family court’s ruling. The Court of Appeals held that the family court’s decision was clearly erroneous, asserting that the Cabinet for Health and Family Services had not provided sufficient evidence that the father's actions resulted in a risk of physical or emotional injury to the child.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, reinstating the family court's order. The Supreme Court held that the family court’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, including the SRO’s testimony, the Cabinet investigator’s observations, and the drug test results. The Supreme Court concluded that the father’s actions, including smoking marijuana in an enclosed vehicle with the child and driving under the influence, created a reasonable potential for harm, thus constituting neglect under Kentucky law. View "Commonwealth v. K.O." on Justia Law

Seventeen-year-old Tyler Delonjay was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Jefferson County, Kentucky, in August 2020, resulting in injuries to Jessica Hill and the loss of her pregnancy. Tyler had been in the sole legal custody of his father, Jason Delonjay, for nine years, although he was not physically staying with his father at the time of the accident. Instead, Tyler was staying with his aunt, Suzanne Small, and various friends due to disputes with his father. Tyler's father had an insurance policy with State Farm that provided coverage if Tyler qualified as a "resident relative," defined as one who "resides primarily" with the named insured.The Jefferson Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm, denying coverage, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. The Court of Appeals found the policy language clear and unambiguous, concluding that Tyler was not living at his father's house when the accident occurred, and thus did not qualify as a "resident relative."The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' decisions. The Court found that the term "resident relative" was ambiguous, especially considering Tyler's status as a minor and the family court custody orders. The Court noted that Tyler had lived with his father for 97% of the time in the nine years preceding the accident and that legal custody remained with his father. The Court held that ambiguous terms in an insurance policy should be construed in favor of coverage. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed the summary judgment in favor of State Farm and remanded the case to the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of Jessica Hill. View "Hill v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co." on Justia Law