Opinion
NO. 2012-CA-000743-MR
04-19-2013
WILLIAM A. YEAGLE APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: William Yeagle, pro se West Liberty, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Jack Conway Attorney General of Kentucky Ken W. Riggs Assistant Attorney General Frankfort, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE JOSEPH W. CASTLEN, III, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 05-CR-00447
OPINION
AFFIRMING
BEFORE: MAZE, STUMBO AND VANMETER, JUDGES. STUMBO, JUDGE: William A. Yeagle appeals from Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Orders of the Daviess Circuit Court denying his motion for CR 60.02 relief from judgment. Yeagle, pro se, argues that the trial court improperly failed to conclude that his constitutional rights were violated when the Commonwealth constructively amended the indictment during trial, and used conflicting theories to convict him. We find no error, and affirm the Orders on appeal.
On August 2, 2005, the Daviess County grand jury indicted Yeagle and two co-defendants, Rodney Wayne Lyle and Michelle Lynn Gaddis, on one count of each of Murder for the intentional killing of Carole Hamilton. Lyle and Gaddis entered guilty pleas to reduced charges, and testified against Yeagle at trial. On or about December 8, 2006, the jury found Yeagle guilty on one count of murder and recommended a sentence of 40 years in prison. On January 12, 2007, Judge Thomas O. Castlen sentenced Yeagle in accordance with the recommendation, and rendered a Judgment of Conviction.
Yeagle then prosecuted an appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court, which affirmed the conviction. His 2009 motion for RCr 11.42 relief was denied by the Daviess Circuit Court on August 7, 2009, and that ruling was affirmed on November 19, 2010 by a panel of this Court. Finally, on January 23, 2010, Yeagle filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to CR 60.02(e) and (f) and CR 60.03. He alleged therein that the Commonwealth improperly amended the indictment during trial, that KRS 532.055(2) ("Verdicts and sentencing in felony cases") was held unconstitutional resulting in a violation of his constitutional rights, and that the jury improperly failed to recommend whether the sentence was to run concurrently or consecutively with his prior convictions. By way of Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Orders rendered on March 6, 2012, the circuit court determined that Yeagle's arguments did not rise to the level necessary to grant the extraordinary relief available under CR 60.02, and that he was not entitled to a new trial. This appeal followed.
The CR 60.02 motion was ruled upon by Judge Joseph Castlen, III and Yeagle was originally sentenced by Judge Thomas Castlen.
Yeagle now argues the Daviess Circuit Court committed reversible error in denying his motion for a new trial pursuant to CR 60.02 and CR 60.03. He maintains that the court wrongly concluded that the Commonwealth did not constructively amend the indictment during the course of the trial. As best we can discern from Yeagle's pro se brief, the focus of his argument on this issue appears to be that though the indictment alleged that Yeagle, Lyle and Gaddis jointly or individually murdered Hamilton, when the matter went to trial the Commonwealth asserted that Yeagle alone committed the offense. In Yeagle's view, the Commonwealth's act of indicting three persons but later taking only one to trial constituted a constructive and unconstitutional amendment of the indictment. Yeagle appears to contend that the proof relied on by the Commonwealth to obtain the indictment was the same proof used to convict him as solely responsible for the murder of Hamilton, and that changing the theory of the case from multiple assailants to a single assailant was improper usage of the proof and was constitutionally infirm. He seeks an Order reversing and remanding the matter for a new trial.
Yeagle does claim error on the other issues presented to the circuit court.
--------
In addressing this issue, the Daviess Circuit Court first recognized that in Kentucky a structure is in place for prosecuting post-judgment claims of error. Citing Gross v. Commonwealth, 648 S.W.2d 853 (Ky. 1983), Judge Castlen noted that this framework is not haphazard and overlapping, but is organized and complete. It provides for a direct appeal, if any, followed by a motion for RCr 11.42 relief, and only thereafter a claim for extraordinary relief pursuant to CR 60.02. The circuit court also determined that within this framework, the aggrieved party must bring all claims of error in the direct appeal which could have been alleged at the time of appeal. Gross, supra.
Applying this principal to the matter at bar, it is clear that Yeagle was required to raise the instant claim of error, if at all, via his direct appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court. The allegation that the Commonwealth improperly amended the indictment was viable at the time of direct appeal, and we find no error in Judge Castlen's conclusion that this claim should have been brought at that time. Accordingly, this issue is procedurally barred, and Judge Castlen properly so found.
Arguendo, even if the matter were properly raised for the first time by way of CR 60.02, we would find no error. The indictment alleged that "William Ashley Yeagle, acting alone, jointly and together or in complicity with Rodney Wayne Lyle and/or Michelle Lynn Gaddis and/or others committed the offense of Murder[.]" At trial, the Commonwealth put forth this very theory of the case, which was memorialized in INSTRUCTION NO. 1 stating, "You will find the defendant, William Ashley Yeagle, guilty of Murder . . . if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt . . . that . . . he alone, or in complicity with Rodney Lyle and/or Michelle Gaddis Lyle, intentionally killed Carole Hamilton by strangulation."
The instruction on Murder given to the jury was the same theory of the case set out in the indictment. The guilty pleas of Lyle and Gaddis to reduced charges in exchange for their testimony did not change the Commonwealth's theory of the case, to wit, that "William Ashley Yeagle, acting alone . . . committed the offense of Murder[.]" The Commonwealth did not amend the indictment - constructively or otherwise - and the Daviess Circuit Court properly so found. CR 60.02 is an extraordinary remedy. Yeagle's claim of error, even if properly raised via CR 60.02, is not supported by the record and does not support a determination that the Daviess Circuit Court erred on this issue.
A trial court's CR 60.02 ruling will be disturbed on appeal only by a showing that the court abused its sound discretion. Brown v. Commonwealth, 932 S.W.2d 359 (Ky. 1996). Yeagle has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for CR 60.02 relief from judgment. Accordingly, we find no error and affirm the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Orders of the Daviess Circuit Court.
ALL CONCUR. BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: William Yeagle, pro se
West Liberty, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Jack Conway
Attorney General of Kentucky
Ken W. Riggs
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky