From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brooks v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
Feb 24, 2017
NO. 2016-CA-000595-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2017)

Opinion

NO. 2016-CA-000595-MR

02-24-2017

WILLIAM BROOKS APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: David S. Mejia Louisville, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Andy Beshear Attorney General of Kentucky Leilani K.M. Martin Assistant Attorney General Frankfort, Kentucky


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED APPEAL FROM GRAYSON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE BRUCE T. BUTLER, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 13-CR-00134 OPINION
AFFIRMING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: DIXON, J. LAMBERT, AND STUMBO, JUDGES. LAMBERT, J., JUDGE: William Brooks appeals from the Grayson Circuit Court order denying his motion for Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42 relief. We affirm.

William Brooks was at 113 Moore Road in Leitchfield, Grayson County, Kentucky, on September 30, 2013, when two deputy sheriffs arrived to serve a warrant on Allen Brooks, William's son. When the deputies stepped onto the porch, they spotted a trash bag with what appeared to be several key ingredients for the manufacture of methamphetamine. The officers also observed a .20 gauge shotgun on the porch. Brooks was the only one at the residence at the time, and he signed a written consent form for the deputies to search the house, premises, and any out buildings. Among other items found at the scene were plastic bags of marijuana, coffee filters filled with a powdery white residue, glass jars containing liquid methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia. There were also marijuana buds hanging up to dry as well as several plastic containers of marijuana seeds.

When the deputies announced to Brooks that he was under arrest, he resisted to the point that the need for backup assistance was required. At least three of the officers were injured (as was Brooks) during the struggle, and a stun gun had to be employed in order to gain Brooks's compliance.

Brooks was charged with ten felony offenses and placed in jail where he remained until his preliminary hearing in Grayson District Court was held on October 7, 2013. On October 12, 2013, Brooks was able to post a cash bond, with several conditions for his release.

The record contains two motions to revoke Brooks's bond after he twice failed to report for random drug screening. However the trial court did not rule upon those motions.

December 3, 2013, a ten-count indictment was returned against Brooks. He entered pleas of not guilty to all counts at arraignment and was scheduled several times for pretrial conferences and a jury trial, with the latter ultimately to be held on May 20, 2014. On that date, after receiving a plea offer from the Commonwealth whereby some charges were reduced, some were dismissed, and some stayed the same, Brooks entered guilty pleas to the bargained-for agreement. He was sentenced on June 17, 2013, to twenty-five years' imprisonment.

The indictment charged the following offenses: Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon; manufacturing methamphetamine, second offense, enhanced by possession of a firearm; possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) in the first degree, first offense, enhanced by possession of a firearm; possession of drug paraphernalia enhanced by possession of a firearm; trafficking in marijuana, first offense, enhanced by possession of a firearm; assault in the third degree (three counts); resisting arrest; and persistent felony offender in the first degree. The indictment listed all the pertinent Kentucky Revised Statutes.

The charges to which Brooks entered guilty pleas were as follows: Manufacturing methamphetamine, first offense; trafficking in marijuana, 8 ounces to 5 pounds; assault in the third degree (all three counts); resisting arrest; and persistent felony offender in the second degree. --------

Separate motions for shock probation (one by counsel and one pro se) were made on September 26, 2014, and January 15, 2015, which the circuit court denied on October 21, 2014, and made no ruling, respectively.

On September 15, 2015, counsel for Brooks filed a motion for RCr 11.42 relief. The Grayson Circuit Court granted the Commonwealth thirty days' leave to answer after which Brooks could reply. The matter was taken under submission, and the order denying was entered on March 23, 2016. Brooks filed notice of appeal on April 22, 2016.

Brooks reiterates the grounds for relief that he made in the circuit court, namely, that the indictment lacked sufficient specificity to place Brooks on notice of the crimes with which he was being charged; therefore, he continues, his later pleas of guilty to the indicted charges were invalid as not knowingly entered. We disagree.

RCr 6.10 is entitled "Requisites of indictment or information." The pertinent part of that Rule (for purposes of this decision) contains the following language:

The indictment or information shall contain, and shall be sufficient if it contains, a plain, concise and definite statement of the essential facts constituting the specific offense with which the defendant is charged. It need not contain any other matter not necessary to such statement, nor need it negative any exception, excuse or proviso contained in any statute creating or defining the offense charged.
RCr 6.10(2). Brooks contends that RCr 6.10(2) renders his indictment invalid.

"[A]n indictment properly states an offense merely by naming the offense charged. In other words, a[n] . . . indictment is not infirm and subject to dismissal solely because it lacks a detailed recitation of the underlying facts. The protocol for a defendant who desires more information is to serve a motion for a bill of particulars. . . . Nothing else was required." Parker v. Commonwealth, 291 S.W.3d 647, 656 (Ky. 2009) (footnote omitted).

In this case, counsel for Brooks moved for and was granted an Order for Discovery and Inspection. The Commonwealth complied with the discovery order on December 18, 2013, less than two weeks after the indictment was returned and nearly six months in advance of the bargained-for guilty plea. The Commonwealth's list of furnished documents included the following: The grand jury testimony; the Grayson County Sheriff Department's incident report (with attachments); the Kentucky State Police laboratory report (which indicated that all narcotics tests were positive); photographs of the arrest scene and confiscated items; copies of the judgments in Brooks's prior convictions (namely, Indictment Nos. 02-CR-00088, 91-CR-00068, and 86-CR-018); and a statement that the Grayson County District Court file (13-F-00137) was available in the judicial building. Thus any alleged defect in the indictment was cured by the information provided to Brooks and his attorney through discovery.

We then turn to Brooks's second argument, i.e., that his guilty plea was infirm. "As a general rule, a voluntary guilty plea waives all defenses other than that the indictment charges no offense." Elmore v. Commonwealth, 236 S.W.3d 623, 626 (Ky. App. 2007), citing Toppass v. Commonwealth, 80 S.W.3d 795, 798 (Ky. App. 2002), and Centers v. Commonwealth, 799 S.W.2d 51, 55 (Ky. App. 1990). As we have held above, the indictment - as well as subsequent discovery - sufficiently apprised Brooks of the charges against him. He cannot credibly claim that he was unaware of the evidence against him when he entered his guilty pleas to the offer extended to him by the Commonwealth. Moreover, the plea bargain significantly reduced the length of Brooks's sentence as well as his eligibility for parole.

The trial court's determination regarding the voluntariness of the plea is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Rigdon v. Commonwealth, 144 S.W.3d 283, 288 (Ky. App. 2004) (internal citations omitted). A decision which is supported by substantial evidence is not clearly erroneous. Id. We find no clear error in the trial court's ruling.

The Order of the Grayson Circuit Court denying Brooks's RCr 11.42 motion is affirmed.

ALL CONCUR. BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: David S. Mejia
Louisville, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Andy Beshear
Attorney General of Kentucky Leilani K.M. Martin
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky


Summaries of

Brooks v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
Feb 24, 2017
NO. 2016-CA-000595-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2017)
Case details for

Brooks v. Commonwealth

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM BROOKS APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE

Court:Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Date published: Feb 24, 2017

Citations

NO. 2016-CA-000595-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2017)