Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the circuit court’s denial of Defendant’s Ky. R. Crim. P. 11.42 motion without a hearing, holding that counsel’s failure to advise a client of the sex offender registration requirement constitutes deficient performance.Defendant pled guilty to criminal attempt to commit kidnapping of a minor victim and other offenses. After he was released from prison, Defendant learned that, as a consequence of his guilty plea, he was required to register under Ky. Rev. Stat. 17.510 as a person who had committed sex crimes or crimes against minors. Defendant filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to Rule 11.42, claiming that counsel had failed to discuss the sex offender registration requirement with him. The circuit court denied the motion without a hearing, ruling that counsel’s failure to advise his client about registration did not warrant relief under Rule 11.42. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a defendant has a right to effective assistance of counsel concerning the requirement to register as a sex offender. View "Commonwealth v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences for first-degree rape, incest, and first-degree sexual abuse but vacated his conviction for second-degree fleeing or evading and the portion of the trial court’s judgment imposing a fine, holding (1) the Commonwealth erred in failing to re-present the case to the grand jury after the indictment against Defendant was dismissed, but Defendant’s due process rights were not violated; (2) the Commonwealth concedes that there was insufficient evidence for Defendant’s conviction of second-degree fleeing or evading; (3) the trial court did not err in failing to grant a mistrial after the victim testified to evidence that had been excluded by the trial court; (4) Defendant’s verdicts for rape, incest, and sexual abuse were unanimous; and (5) the Commonwealth concedes that the trial court erred in imposing a fine on an indigent defendant. View "Kelly v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded Defendant’s conviction for two counts of first-degree sexual abuse and affirmed his conviction for two counts of first-degree sodomy, holding that the jury instructions on the sexual abuse counts violated the unanimity requirement.Specifically, the Court held (1) the trial court erred in allowing duplicitous instructions on sexual abuse in violation of the unanimity requirement for jury verdicts; (2) the jury instructions for sexual abuse and for sodomy did not subject Defendant to double jeopardy; (3) the trial court did not err in the method of impeachment of the victim’s testimony or in admitting a recorded interview; (4) the trial court erred by admitting a recorded phone call as an adoptive admission, but the error was harmless; and (5) any error in running Defendant’s sentences consecutively instead of concurrently will be cured on remand. View "King v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that Defendant was entitled to a new persistent felony offender (PFO) and sentencing trial because because the proceedings were fundamentally unfair.A jury found Defendant guilty of robbery and two counts of kidnapping and found Defendant to be a PFO. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the two kidnapping charges, but before Defendant was retried on the kidnapping charges, he filed a RCr 11.42 motion alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel stemming from a juror’s presence on the jury who was biased toward Defendant. The circuit court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial. The Supreme Court held (1) the guilt phase of trial was not fundamentally unfair where no one knew of the juror’s bias toward Defendant during voir dire or the guilt phase of the trial; but (2) once the juror realized that he was Defendant’s former victim prejudice could be presumed, and Defendant was entitled to a new PFO and sentencing trial. View "Commonwealth v. Douglas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of two counts of first-degree assault and for being a first-degree persistent felony offender and his sentence of thirty-five years’ imprisonment, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) the trial court erred by failing to excuse Juror #25, who served as a member of the jury even though he was peremptorily struck by Defendant, but the error was not palpable; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting recorded portions of Defendant’s police interrogation. View "Cummings v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of complicity to kidnapping, complicity to attempted murder, and complicity to first-degree robbery and sentencing Defendant to a total of forty years’ imprisonment, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for directed verdict on his kidnapping charge; (2) Defendant was not tried in the wrong county; (3) Defendant suffered no undue prejudice when he was denied a continuance; (4) any error in the admission of the victim’s statements was harmless, and there was no prosecutorial misconduct in references to the victim’s statements; and (5) the jury instructions contained no unanimity error. View "Brown v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of complicity to kidnapping, complicity to first-degree assault, and complicity to theft by unlawful taking and sentencing Defendant to twenty years’ imprisonment, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held that (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when denying Defendant’s motions for continuances; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motions for directed verdict on his charges. View "McCoy v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the Kentucky Parole Board’s revocation hearing in this case was an adjudicative function, a discretionary act for which the Parole Board enjoyed absolute immunity from liability for its decisions whether to grant, deny, or revoke parole.Phyllis Roach was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment with a three-year conditional discharge period after she pled guilty to sodomy in the first degree. After she was released, Roach was charged with violating the terms of her postincarceration supervision. At a parole revocation hearing, the Parole Board sentenced Roach to serve fourteen months, the remainder of her conditional discharge period. Roach filed a complaint with the Board of Claims seeking damages for her “wrongful incarceration.” The Board of Claims rejected her claims. The circuit court reversed, finding that the Parole Board was grossly negligent in applying an unconstitutional sentence. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Board’s adjudication of Roach’s rights as to whether she violated her postincarceration release requirements was a quasi-adjudicative function and therefore a discretionary act for which the Board enjoyed absolute immunity. View "Roach v. Kentucky Parole Board" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of the murder of his four-month-old son and his sentence of life imprisonment, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.Defendant was convicted after a jury trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) the jury instructions did not violate Defendant’s right to a unanimous jury verdict; and (2) the trial court did not commit reversible error when it admitted certain evidence of text messages under Ky. R. Evid. 404(b) and 403. View "Cox v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of two counts of trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree and other drug-related offenses and his sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment, holding that there was no reversible error in this case.Specifically, the Court held (1) the Commonwealth violated the notice requirement set forth in Ky. Rev. Stat. 508 by waiting until forty hours prior to trial to disclose a confidential informant’s identity, but the late disclosure did not compel a new trial; (2) Defendant’s claims of error with respect to the complicity to trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree conviction were unavailing; (3) the parole officer’s “good time” credit testimony presented during the penalty phase of trial did not violate Defendant’s right to due process; and (4) the prosecutor’s closing argument during the penalty phase did not amount to flagrant misconduct. View "Little v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law