Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In May and July of 2012, Jonathan McDaniel, David DeShields, and John Martin, all inmates at the State Reformatory in LaGrange, and all serving sentences for felony sex offenses, filed very similar pro se motions at their respective trial courts challenging the legality of the conditional discharge requirement of KRS 532.043, and sought to have the discharge period deleted from their sentences. All three trial courts denied the motion, and all three defendants appealed. The Supreme Court granted defendants' joint motion for discretionary review to address their concern that the Court of Appeals inappropriately characterized their trial court motions as having been brought pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42, and to address the Court's own concern that the Court of Appeals, "perhaps in its eagerness to try to calm the waters after the 2011 amendment to KRS 532.043," inappropriately ruled on a question not properly before it. After that review, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ultimate affirmance of the trial court rulings denying relief, but "vacated" the Court of Appeals' opinion except as to the issue of whether Martin's and McDaniel's guilty pleas were subject to appellate review. View "McDaniel v. Kentucky" on Justia Law

After entering a guilty plea, the Appellant Bryan Russell sent a letter to the trial court complaining about the effectiveness of his counsel and the legality of the sentence to which he had agreed. The letter did not specifically ask for any relief, such as the setting aside of Russell's plea. The primary issue in this case was whether Russell's letter was sufficient to constitute a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Criminal Rule 8.10. Resolution of that issue turned primarily on whether the letter "set[s] forth the relief or order sought" as required under the Rule. After review of the letter, the Supreme Court concluded that because Russell's letter did not expressly ask for any relief, much less ask to withdraw his guilty plea, it could not be construed as a motion under Criminal Rule 8.14. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment. View "Russell v. Kentucky" on Justia Law

Charles Wimberly filed an application for disability retirement benefits with the Kentucky Retirement Systems (KERS). A hearing officer recommended that Wimberly's application be denied and, before KERS could render a final decision, Wimberly filed a second application pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 61.600(2). Following the recommendation of another hearing officer, KERS denied that application. Wimberly sought judicial review; the circuit court reversed KERS. KERS appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the circuit court. The Supreme Court granted discretionary review to address the parties' arguments regarding the application of the doctrine of res judicata and to determine whether the consumption of alcohol was or could be a pre-existing condition. Having reviewed the record and the arguments of the parties, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Kentucky Retirement Systems v. Wimberly" on Justia Law

Dianne Carson first filed an application for retirement disability benefits in November 2007. Based on the recommendation of a hearing officer, the Kentucky Retirement Systems (KERS) denied Carson's claim. Carson did not seek judicial review of KERS's order, choosing instead to file a second application in October 2009. Based on a recommendation of a different hearing officer, KERS again denied Carson's claim. Carson sought judicial review and the circuit reversed and remanded with instructions for KERS to consider all of the medical evidence Carson submitted. The Court of Appeals affirmed. KERS argued that Carson's second application should have been dismissed under the doctrine of res judicata. "If res judicata applied to this action, Carson would have been barred from filing a second application that was based on the same claim as her first application. However, KRS 61.600(2) requires KERS to accept an employee's timely filed "reapplication based on the same claim of incapacity" and to reconsider the claim 'for disability if accompanied by new objective medical evidence.'" This case was remanded for KERS to undertake the correct review of the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. View "Kentycky Retirement Systems v. Carson" on Justia Law

In 2011, Appellant Tracey Cassetty was charged with felony theft by unlawful taking. He entered into a diversion agreement with several conditions, including his entering a guilty plea with a recommended sentence of five years, paying restitution that day, and remaining drug free and subject to random testing. The court also entered an order of referral to drug court. Although the court's orders did not state that completion of drug court was a condition of his diversion, the judge's statements during the entry of the plea made this condition clear. Cassetty's drug-court program was presided over by Judge Tyler Gill. As part of that program, Cassetty entered a rehabilitation facility. Unfortunately, he had difficulty with the facility and was released from it. He also failed at least one drug screen. As a result, he was discharged from drug court, setting in motion the process to revoke his diversion. Cassetty moved to recuse Judge Gill from the revocation proceeding, citing his presiding over the drug-court proceedings. Although the judge's previous practice had been to recuse in such cases, he denied the motion. He noted that the Judicial Ethics Committee had issued an opinion, JE-122, stating that it was not a breach of the judicial canons for a judge to preside over a defendant's drug-court program and a revocation hearing based on a violation of the terms of that program, unless the judge learned information outside the court process. In light of this opinion, the judge concluded that recusal would violate Canon 3B(1) (a "judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge except those in which disqualification is required"). The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether the notice of appeal, naming only an order denying a recusal motion and not the final judgment, substantially complied with the requirements of the Civil Rules so as to invoke the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction and avoid dismissal of the appeal. The Supreme Court concluded that it did not. "Simply put, a notice of appeal naming only an order denying a motion to recuse, and not a final judgment, is fatally defective. Neither the rule of substantial compliance nor its subsidiary rule of relation forward can salvage such a notice of appeal. As such, such a notice of appeal fails to invoke the jurisdiction of the appellate court, and the attempted appeal should be dismissed." Therefore, the order of the Court of Appeals dismissing Cassetty's appeal was affirmed. View "Cassetty v. Kentucky" on Justia Law

The Commonwealth appealed a Court of Appeals judgment remanding this case back to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on Appellee Douglas Rank's RCr 11.42 motion. Rank pled guilty to and was subsequently convicted of first degree assault for which he was serving a fifteen-year prison sentence when he moved pursuant to RCr 11.42 to vacate his conviction. Rank's motion included a request for an evidentiary hearing to establish that his guilty plea was not made knowingly, intelligently and voluntary and was, instead, the result of ineffective assistance of his trial counsel, Robert Gettys, and to lesser degree, attorney Pat Hickey. The circuit court denied Rank's motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Court of Appeals concluded that he had raised issues of fact that required an evidentiary hearing and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. After review, the Supreme Court found no reversible error in the Court of Appeals' judgment and affirmed. View "Kentucky v. Rank" on Justia Law

Stanley M. Chesley requested relief from the Court of Appeals under CR 65.07, which authorizes a party to request injunctive relief from the circuit court in the form of a restraining order, temporary injunction, or permanent injunction in a final judgment. In this case, the entry of a final judgment on the breach of fiduciary duty, which required Chesley to comply with an unpaid judgment, did not occur during the pendency of the case and therefore cannot be viewed as being a temporary injunction. Instead of being an injunction, the order was a post-judgment order in furtherance of respondents' efforts to collect on the outstanding judgment against Chesley. Because the order was not an injunction, it is not subject to review under CR 65.07. Accordingly, Chesley is not entitled to relief under CR 65.09. The court therefore denied Chelsey's motion for interlocutory relief. View "Chesley v. Abbott" on Justia Law

The Estate of Pratikshya Gurung filed a negligence action against Norton Hospital after Gurung was born with brain damage and quadriplegia. On appeal, Norton challenged the Court of Appeals' dismissal as moot of a writ action filed by Norton over a discovery dispute with the Estate. The court concluded that the Court of Appeals abused its discretion because its decision was not based on sound legal principles where Norton's writ action is not moot because relief can still be afforded. The court stated that it is true that the documents Norton alleges are privileged have now been provided to the Estate, but options remain. Accordingly, the court remanded for consideration of Norton's asserted privilege in light of the court's decision in Tibbs v. Bunnell. View "Norton Hosp. v. Hon. Barry L. Willett" on Justia Law

Jason Tudor claimed that he suffered work-related cumulative-trauma back injuries while employed by Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. Toyota’s third party administrator (the TPA) denied Tudor’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits based on the belief that Tudor’s condition was not work-related. Tudor then filed an application for adjustment of injury claim, alleging three cumulative-trauma injuries. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Tudor suffered a series of work-related injuries and awarded Tudor income benefits. The ALJ further found that Toyota had failed to meet its burden of proving that Tudor had not timely filed his claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the ALJ. The court of appeals affirmed the ALJ’s award of benefits. The Supreme Court vacated the ALJ’s opinion and award and remanded, holding (1) the ALJ’s application of Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. v. Czarnecki was based on a misunderstanding of the record; and (2) the ALJ’s finding that Tudor was entitled to temporary total disability benefits was made prior to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Trane Commercial Systems v. Tipton, and therefore, the case must be remanded for consideration of the factors set forth in Tipton. View "Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. v. Tudor" on Justia Law

Appellant, a police officer, sustained a work-related injury and sought disability benefits. The Board of Trustees of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Policemen’s and Firefighter’s Retirement Fund (Board) denied Appellant’s application. After exhausting his administrative remedies, Appellant filed a petition for judicial review of the Board’s decision but failed to sign or verify the petition. The Board moved to dismiss Appellant’s appeal, arguing that his petition failed to comply with the requirement of Ky. Rev. Stat. 67A.670(2) that a petition for review be “verified by the petitioner.” The circuit court denied the Board’s motion, finding that Appellant had cured the deficiency of his original pleading and therefore “substantially complied” with the statutory verification requirement. The Board filed a petition for a writ of prohibition to bar the circuit court from reviewing the Board’s decision, concluding that the deficiency in Appellant’s initial pleading deprived the circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed and vacated the writ, holding that a first class, second class, or special writ was not available because the circuit court was not proceeding outside its jurisdiction, there was no showing that “great injustice and irreparable injury” would ensue, and the orderly administration of justice was not imperiled by the circuit court’s ruling. View "Spears v. Hon. Pamela Goodwine" on Justia Law