Case Title: Roach v. Kentucky Parole Board

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2017-SC-000250-DG

State: kentucky

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Date: 2018-08-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
RENDERED: AUGUST 16, 2018 TO BE PUBLISHED of PHYLLIS ROACH 2017-SC-000250-DG APPELLANT DC V. ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS CASE NOS. 2015-CA-001595-MR AND 2015-CA-001994-MR FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT NO. 15-CI-00067 KENTUCKY PAROLE BOARD and JUSTICE 86 PUBLIC SAFETY.CABINET, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEES OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE CUNNINGHAM AFFIRMING On Januar y 14, 2002, fac ing indic t ment s fo r eight een (18) c har ges o f sex c r imes t hat al l egedl y o c c ur r ed bet w een 1987 and 1991, Appel l ant , Phyl l is Ro ac h, pl ed guil t y t o o ne c o unt o f so do my in t he sec o nd degr ee. On Febr uar y 27, 2002, Ro ac h w as sent enc ed t o t en year s ’ impr iso nment by t he Meade Cir c uit Co ur t , w it h a t hr ee-year c o ndit io nal disc har ge per io d fo l l o w ing her r el ease pur suant t o Kent uc ky Revised St at ut es (KRS) 532.043. Ro ac h w as r el eased o n o r abo ut Mar c h 30, 2011 and began po st inc ar c er at io n super visio n pur suant t o KRS 532.043. On Jul y 19, 2011, Ro ac h w as c har ged w it h vio l at ing t he t er ms o f her po st inc ar c er at io n super visio n. At her pr el iminar y par o l e r evo c at io n hear ing. Ro ac h ar gued t hat t he super visio n st at ut e did no t appl y t o her bec ause KRS 532.043 did no t exist unt il Jul y 15, 1998, at l east seven year s aft er she c o mmit t ed so do my. Despit e defense c o unsel ’s ar gument , t he Administ r at ive Law Judge (“ALJ”) fo und t hat KRS 532.043 appl ied t o Ro ac h and fo und pr o babl e c ause t hat Ro ac h vio l at ed t he t er ms o f her super visio n. The Par o l e Bo ar d ado pt ed t he ALJ’s r ec o mmended o r der and sent enc ed Ro ac h t o ser ve t he r emainder o f her c o ndit io nal disc har ge per io d, fo ur t een mo nt hs, inc ar c er at ed in t he Kent uc ky Co r r ec t io nal Inst it ut io n fo r Wo men in Shel by Co unt y. Aft er nine mo nt hs o f inc ar c er at io n. Ro ac h pet it io ned t he Shel by Cir c uit Co ur t fo r w r it o f habeas corpus. The Shel by Cir c uit fo und t hat t he c o ndit io nal disc har ge par t o f Ro ac h’s o r iginal sent enc e impo sed by t he Meade Cir c uit w as void ab initio, as it w as an ex post facto appl ic at io n o f KRS 532.043 t o Ro ac h’s c r ime. Ac c o r dingl y, t he c o ur t gr ant ed Ro ac h’s pet it io n and o r der ed her r el ease. Ther eaft er , Ro ac h fil ed a c ivil l aw suit against t he Kent uc ky Par o l e Bo ar d in Fr ankl in Cir c uit Co ur t , seeking c o mpensat o r y and punit ive damages fo r her “w r o ngful inc ar c er at io n.” Ho w ever , t he Fr ankl in Cir c uit Co ur t fo und t hat t he Kent uc ky Bo ar d o f Cl aims had jur isdic t io n fo r c ivil c l aims against t he Co mmo nw eal t h, no t t he Fr ankl in Cir c uit . So , t he c o ur t dismissed Ro ac h’s c l aims and suggest ed she r efil e befo r e t he Bo ar d o f Cl aims. Ro ac h t hen fil ed a c o mpl aint w it h t he Bo ar d o f Cl aims, w hic h r ejec t ed her c l aims, asser t ing: (1) t he Bo ar d o f Cl aims do es no t have subjec t -mat t er jur isdic t io n o ver int ent io nal t o r t s l ike “fal se impr iso nment ”; (2) t he Par o l e Bo ar d did no t have a dut y t o quest io n and diso bey t he Meade Cir c uit and t he ALJ’s fac ial l y val id o r der s; and (3) if t he Par o l e Bo ar d did have t he dut y t o anal yze t he l egal it y o f suc h c o ur t o r der s, t hen t hat w o ul d be a disc r et io nar y ac t o f t he Par o l e Bo ar d, r at her t han minist er ial . Ro ac h appeal ed t he dismissal t o t he Fr ankl in Cir c uit , w hic h r ever sed t he Bo ar d o f Cl aims and fo und t hat t he Par o l e Bo ar d w as gr o ssl y negl igent in appl ying an unc o nst it ut io nal sent enc e. The Par o l e Bo ar d appeal ed t o t he Co ur t o f Appeal s. The Co ur t o f Appeal s r ever sed t he Fr ankl in Cir c uit , ho l ding t hat t he Par o l e Bo ar d’s r evo c at io n hear ing—a quasi-judic ial func t io n—w as a disc r et io nar y ac t al l o t t ing t he Par o l e Bo ar d abso l ut e immunit y fr o m l iabil it y fo r it s dec isio ns w het her t o gr ant , deny, o r r evo ke par o l e. The Co ur t o f Appeal s hel d t hat t he Bo ar d o f Cl aims o nl y has jur isdic t io n t o aw ar d damages fo r “t he negl igent per fo r manc e o f minist er ial ac t s,” KRS 49.070(2) (fo r mer l y KRS 44.073(2)), r at her t han disc r et io nar y ac t s. It t her efo r e hel d t hat t he Bo ar d o f Cl aims had pr o per l y dismissed Ro ac h’s suit . Ro ac h appeal ed t o t his Co ur t and w e gr ant ed disc r et io nar y r eview . Analysis “[U]po n judic ial r eview , defer enc e ext ends t o agenc y fac t -finding. Ho w ever , mat t er s o f l aw , inc l uding t he int er pr et at io n and c o nst r uc t io n o f st at ut es[,] ar e . . . w it hin t he pr o vinc e o f t he judic ial br anc h o f go ver nment .” Board of Educ. of Fayette Cnty. v. Hurley-Richards, 396 S.W.3d 879, 882 (Ky. 2013). Ho w ever , a r eview ing c o ur t may r ever se and r emand t he Par o l e Bo ar d’s o r der as t o det er minat io ns o f fac t , in w ho l e o r in par t , if it finds t hat t he Par o l e Bo ar d’s final o r der is: “(a) In vio l at io n o f c o nst it ut io nal o r st at ut o r y pr o visio ns; . . . (c ) Wit ho ut suppo r t o f subst ant ial evidenc e o n t he w ho l e r ec o r d; [o r ] (d) Ar bit r ar y, c apr ic io us, o r c har ac t er ized by abuse o f disc r et io n . . . KRS 13B. 150(2). Co ur t s r eview agenc y det er minat io ns o f l aw de novo. Kentucky Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n v. Estill Cnty. Fiscal Court, 503 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Ky. 2016). KRS 532.043 The par t ies agr ee t hat Ro ac h w as impr o per l y subjec t ed t o t hr ee year s o f sex o ffender c o ndit io nal disc har ge r equir ement s under KRS 532.043 by t he Meade Cir c uit Co ur t ’s o r der , bec ause t hat st at ut e w as no t in effec t unt il Jul y 15, 1998, w hic h w as at l east seven year s aft er her o ffense. Al t ho ugh fo r mer KRS 532.043(6) st at ed t hat it appl ied t o t ho se w ho pl ead o r w er e c o nvic t ed aft er Jul y 15, 1998, suc h a r ul e is an unc o nst it ut io nal ex post facto appl ic at io n under bo t h t he feder al c o nst it ut io n and t his Co mmo nw eal t h’s c o nst it ut io n, w hic h “aggr avat es o r inc r eases t he punishment fo r a c r ime as c o mpar ed t o t he punishment w hen t he c r ime w as c o mmit t ed . . . .” Buck v. Commonwealth, 308 S.W.3d 661, 664 (Ky. 2010) (c it ing Purvis v. Commonwealth, 14 S.W.3d 21, 23 (Ky. 2000)); U.S. Co nst , ar t . I, § 10, c l . 1; Ky. Co nst . § 19(1). Thus, it w as impr o per fo r t he Meade Cir c uit Co ur t t o subjec t Ro ac h t o t he po st inc ar c er at io n super visio n r equir ement s o f KRS 532.043 and t o r equir e t he Par o l e Bo ar d t o punish Ro ac h fo r vio l at io n o f said r equir ement s pur suant t o KRS 439.330(l )(e). Ther efo r e, t he Shel by Cir c uit Co ur t pr o per l y gr ant ed Ro ac h’s habeas pet it io n. bec ause t he Meade Cir c uit Co ur t ’s o r der had er r o neo usl y impo sed KRS 532.043 po st inc ar c er at io n r equir ement s upo n Ro ac h. Discretionary or Ministerial Act? “Whet her faul t c an be appo r t io ned against so meo ne w it h abso l ut e immunit y fr o m l iabil it y is det er mined by c o nst r uing t he [appl ic abl e] st at ut e.” Jefferson Cnty. Com. Attorney's Office v. Kaplan, 65 S.W.3d 916, 922 (Ky. 2001). Whil e KRS 49.070(2) spec ific al l y abr o gat es so ver eign immunit y fo r minist er ial ac t s, t his Co ur t has r ec o gnized t hat , “[b]y impl ic at io n, t he negl igent per fo r manc e o f no n-minist er ial , i.e., disc r et io nar y, ac t s c anno t be a basis fo r r ec o ver y under t he [Bo ar d o f Cl aims] Ac t .” Collins v. Commonwealth ofKy. Nat. Res. & Envtl. Prot. Cabinet, 10 S.W.3d 122, 125 (Ky. 1999). “In det er mining w het her ac t s ar e minist er ial o r disc r et io nar y fo r pur po ses o f det er mining w het her t he Co mmo nw eal t h o r o ne o f it s agenc ies may be hel d l iabl e fo r negl igent per fo r manc e o f t hat ac t , ‘it is nec essar y t o det er mine w het her t he ac t s invo l ve po l ic y-making dec isio ns and signific ant judgment , o r ar e mer el y r o ut ine dut ies.”’ Commonwealth Transp. Cabinet, Dep’t of Highways v. Sexton, 256 S.W.3d 29, 32 (Ky. 2008) (int er nal c it at io n o mit t ed). Simil ar l y, t he Sixt h Cir c uit Co ur t o f Appeal s has r ec o gnized t hat "t he abso l ut e immunit y t hat pr o t ec t s judic ial o ffic er s engaged in judic ial func t io ns al so pr o t ec t s o t her st at e o ffic ial s engaged in adjudic at ive func t io ns." Draine v. Leavy, 504 Fed.Appx. 494, 495 (6t h Cir . 2012) (quoting Dean v. Byerley, 354 F.3d 540, 555 (6t h Cir . 2004)). Fo r t his r easo n, “‘par o l e bo ar d member s ar e abso l ut el y immune fr o m l iabil it y fo r t heir c o nduc t in individual par o l e dec isio ns w hen t hey ar e exer c ising t heir dec isio n making po w er s ....”’ Draine, 504 Fed.Appx. at 496 [quoting Walter v. Torres, 917 F.2d 1379, 1384 (5t h Cir . 1990)). Thus, if t he Par o l e Bo ar d’s dec isio n w het her Ro ac h vio l at ed t he t er ms o f po st inc ar c er at io n super visio n w as an adjudic at o r y func t io n, t hen t he Bo ar d and it s member s ar e abso l ut el y immune. Ro ac h ar gues t hat t he Bo ar d’s det er minat io n t hat Ro ac h w as subjec t t o KRS 542.043 w as simpl y a minist er ial dut y invo l ving dec isio ns o f fac t , and no t o ne invo l ving signific ant judgment . We disagr ee. Rat her , t he Bo ar d, pr esent ed w it h t he fac t s o f Ro ac h’s c ase, w as dut y-bo und t o det er mine w het her she w as subjec t t o KRS 542.043 and w het her she had vio l at ed it s r equir ement s. Ho l ding a hear ing o n a par o l e o r po st inc ar c er at io n vio l at io n c har ge is inher ent l y an adjudic at o r y ac t io n. See Black’s Law Dictionary 42 (6t h ed. 1990) (“Adjudic at o r y ac t io n—Administ r at ive ac t io ns ar e ‘adjudic at o r y’ in c har ac t er w hen t hey c ul minat e in final det er minat io n affec t ing per so nal o r pr o per t y r ight s.”). Mo r eo ver , it is impo r t ant t o c l ar ify t hat judic ial func t io ns ar e inher ent l y disc r et io nar y in nat ur e. “[A]t t heir c o r e, disc r et io nar y ac t s ar e t ho se invo l ving quasi-judic ial o r po l ic y-making dec isio ns.” Marson v. Thomason, 438 S.W.3d 292, 297 (Ky. 2014). “Quasi-Judic ial ” is “[a] t er m appl ied t o t he ac t io n, disc r et io n, et c . o f publ ic administ r at ive o ffic er s o r bo dies, w ho ar e r equir ed t o invest igat e fac t s, o r asc er t ain t he exist enc e o f fac t s, ho l d hear ings, w eigh evidenc e, and dr aw c o nc l usio ns fr o m t hem, as a basis fo r t heir o ffic ial ac t io n, and exer c ise disc r et io n o f a judic ial nat ur e.” Bolden v. City of Covington, 803 S.W.2d 577, 581 (Ky. 1991) (quo t ing Black's Law Dictionary 1245 (6t h ed. 1990)). An agenc y’s “quasi-judic ial po w er ” r efer s t o “[t ]he po w er o f an administ r at ive agenc y t o adjudic at e t he r ight s o f per so ns befo r e it .” Id. Thus, w e find t hat t he Bo ar d’s adjudic at io n o f Ro ac h’s r ight s as t o w het her she vio l at ed t he po st inc ar c er at io n r el ease r equir ement s o f KRS 542.043 w as a quasi- adjudic at ive func t io n, and t her efo r e a disc r et io naiy ac t . Bec ause w e c o nc l ude t hat t he ac t invo l ved her e w as disc r et io nar y, KRS 49.070(2) did no t abr o gat e t he Bo ar d’s abso l ut e immunit y. Conclusion Fo r t he r easo ns st at ed her ein, w e her eby affir m t he dec isio n o f t he Co ur t o f Appeal s, but fo r al t er nat ive r easo ning. We ho l d t hat t he Par o l e Bo ar d’s r evo c at io n hear ing w as an adjudic at ive func t io n, a disc r et io nar y ac t fo r w hic h t he Par o l e Bo ar d enjo ys abso l ut e immunit y. Al l sit t ing. Al l c o nc ur . COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Ol iver H. Bar ber , Jr . Tho mas James Banaszynski BARBER, BANASZYNSKI & HIATT, P.S.C. COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES: Al l iso n Rene Br o w n Depar t ment o f Co r r ec t io ns 7