Case Title: EARL TIPTON V. HON. LARRY MILLER, JUDGE, POWELL CIRCUIT COURT, ET AL.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2018-SC-000400-MR

State: kentucky

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Date: 2019-04-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER, UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS, RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE ACTION. RENDERED: APRIL 18, 2019 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 2018-SC-000400-MR EARL TIPTON APPELLANT ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS V. 2018-CA-000016-MR POWELL CIRCUIT COURT NOS. 94-CR-00003 AND 95-CR-00012 HON. LARRY MILLER, JUDGE, APPELLEE POWELL CIRCUIT COURT AND COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY REAL PARTY IN INTEREST MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING Earl Tipt o n appeals pro se as a mat t er o f right fro m t he Co urt o f Appeals ’ o rder denying his pet it io n fo r a writ o f mandamus. Because a writ o f mandamus is no t just ified, we affirm t he Co urt o f Appeals ’ denial o f Tipt o n’s pet it io n. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 2, 1993, Earl Tipt o n kidnapped a wo man fro m a co nvenience st o re in Clay Cit y, Kent ucky, t hen raped and so do mized her. Fo llo wing a jury t rial, Tipt o n was fo und guilt y o f kidnapping, first -degree so do my, and t hree co unt s o f first -degree rape. He was sent enced t o t went y years in priso n. Tipt o n appealed as a mat t er o f right t o t his Co urt , raising issues regarding t he qualificat io n o f an expert wit ness and his at t o rney’s abilit y t o co nduct a meaningful vo ir dire examinat io n. On No vember 19, 1998, t his Co urt rendered an o pinio n affirming Tipt o n’s co nvict io n, but reversing t he po rt io n o f t he judgment impo sing t he penalt y, ho lding t hat Tipt o n’s co unsel sho uld have been permit t ed t o discuss t he full range o f penalt ies during vo ir dire. The case was remanded t o t he t rial co urt fo r a new sent encing hearing. The penalt y phase was ret ried o n April 11, 2000. The jury was pro vided an agreed summary o f t he guilt phases and t he at t o rneys read t he o riginal clo sing argument s. The jury ret urned a verdict reco mmending t went y-year sent ences o n each co unt t o run co nsecut ively fo r a t o t al sent ence o f o ne- hundred years. Tipt o n appealed t o t his Co urt again, arguing t hat t he t rial co urt sho uld have excused t hree juro rs fo r cause and sho uld have applied Kent ucky Revised St at ut e (KRS) 532.110(l)(c) ret ro act ively t o limit his aggregat e sent ence t o sevent y years. In an o pinio n rendered No vember 21, 2002, t his Co urt affirmed, no t ing t hat “[Tipt o n] is unlikely t o serve o ut his t erm, whet her it be sevent y years o r o ne hundred years,” and his paro le eligibilit y remained t he same. In 2003 Tipt o n filed a mo t io n t o vacat e his sent ence pursuant t o Kent ucky Rule o f Criminal Pro cedure (RCr) 11.42, arguing t hat his at t o rneys were ineffect ive and request ing an evident iary hearing. The t rial co urt denied Tipt o n’s mo t io n and he appealed t o t he Co urt o f Appeals. In t hat appeal, Tipt o n co nt inued t o argue t hat his represent at io n was ineffect ive, specifically 2 raising issues co ncerning expert t est imo ny, jury select io n, inst ruct io ns, and t he sufficiency o f evidence. The Co urt o f Appeals held t hat Tipt o n’s represent at io n was no t deficient and t hat so me o f t he issues raised by Tipt o n in his RCr 11.42 appeal sho uld have been raised in his direct appeals, no t in a co llat eral at t ack.1 Tipt o n filed a pet it io n fo r writ o f mandamus in t he Co urt o f Appeals o n January 23, 2018, arguing t hat his criminal co nduct in t his case was used t o suppo rt t he charges fo r all five co unt s in vio lat io n o f t he Do uble Jeo pardy Clause o f t he Fift h Amendment . U.S. Const, amend. V. Mo re specifically, Tipt o n argues t hat t here co uld be no kidnapping charge wit ho ut t he rape charge, and since t here was o nly o ne vict im and o ne rape o ffense, his right t o be free fro m do uble jeo pardy was vio lat ed by t he mult iple charges fo r t he same act . In respo nse, t he Co mmo nwealt h st at ed t hat Tipt o n so ught t o raise issues which he co uld have raised in his direct appeal, RCr 11.42 mo t io n and appeal, o r Kent ucky Civil Rule o f Pro cedure (CR) 60.02 mo t io n and appeal. The Co urt o f Appeals denied his pet it io n, ho lding t hat Tipt o n is no t ent it led t o relief by means o f a writ . This appeal fo llo wed. 1 The reco rd suggest s t hat Tipt o n also filed a CR 60.02 appeal in t he Co urt o f Appeals (2008-CA-002131-MR). The Co mmo nwealt h, in it s respo nse t o Tipt o n’s pet it io n fo r writ o f mandamus, no t es t hat Tipt o n init iat ed a CR 60.02 appeal and t he Co urt o f Appeals ’ o rder denying his pet it io n ackno wledges t he same. Due t o t he limit ed reco rd in t his appeal, we canno t find any info rmat io n regarding what Tipt o n argued o r t he Co urt o f Appeals ’ dispo sit io n in t hat CR 60.02 appeal. 3 ANALYSIS Tipt o n argues t hat t he Co urt o f Appeals erred in denying his pet it io n fo r a writ o f mandamus. A writ o f mandamus is an “ext rao rdinary remedy which co mpels t he perfo rmance o f a minist erial act o r mandat o ry dut y where t here is a clear legal right o r no adequat e remedy at law.” City of Harlan v. Appalachian Reg’l Healthcare, Inc., 85 S.W.3d 607, 613 (Ky. 2002). “[C]o urt s o f t his Co mmo nwealt h are — and sho uld be — lo at h t o grant t he ext rao rdinary writ s unless abso lut ely necessary.” Cox v. Braden, 266 S.W.3d 792, 795 (Ky. 2008). This Co urt held t hat a writ may be grant ed: only upon a sho wing t hat : 1) t he lo wer co urt is pro ceeding o r is abo ut t o pro ceed outside its jurisdiction and t here is no adequate remedy by appeal, o r 2) t he lo wer co urt is abo ut t o act inco rrect ly, alt ho ugh within its jurisdiction, and t here exist s no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise and great injustice and irreparable injury would result. Hoskins v. Maricle, 150 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Ky. 2004) (quo t ing Southeastern United Medigroup, Inc. v. Hughes, 952 S.W.2d 195, 199 (Ky. 1997)). In t his case, t here is no do ubt t hat t he t rial co urt had jurisdict io n, making t he seco nd class o f writ s t he o nly viable o pt io n fo r Tipt o n. We review t he decisio n o f t he Co urt o f Appeals t o deny t he writ under an abuse o f discret io n st andard. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trude, 151 S.W.3d 803, 810 (Ky. 2004). Tipt o n argues t hat t he rape charge was used as a basis fo r t he kidnapping charge, assert ing t hat t he t wo crimes invo lve t he same element s and t herefo re he co uld no t be charged wit h any subsequent co unt s o f rape. Addit io nally, he argues t hat t he rape charge merged int o t he kidnapping 4 charge. Tipt o n frames t his argument as a do uble jeo pardy argument , st at ing t hat t here is an o verlap bet ween t he element s o f first -degree rape and kidnapping. While Tipt o n is co rrect in assert ing t hat “t he right o f appeal is no t an adequat e remedy against do uble jeo pardy,” Klee v. Lair, 621 S.W.2d 892, 893 (Ky. 1981), his argument is impro perly charact erized as a do uble jeo pardy argument . The element s o f kidnapping and first -degree rape do no t o verlap. KRS 510.040; KRS 509.040. Mo reo ver, a writ o f mandamus may no t be used as a subst it ut e fo r appeal o r t o circumvent no rmal appellat e pro cedure. Nat’l Gypsum Co. v. Corns, 736 S.W.2d 325 (Ky. 1987); Merrick v. Smith, 347 S.W.2d 537 (Ky. 1961). Tipt o n has had t wo previo us appeals t o t his Co urt . He is no w raising subst ant ive issues which he had an adequat e o ppo rt unit y t o raise in t ho se direct appeals, o r in his RCr 11.42 appeal t o t he Co urt o f Appeals. Furt her, his current argument do es no t present gro unds suppo rt ing t he ext rao rdinary relief o f a writ o f mandamus. The Co urt o f Appeals did no t err in denying a writ . CONCLUSION Tipt o n has failed t o meet t he crit eria fo r t he issuance o f a writ o f mandamus. Acco rdingly, t he o rder o f t he Co urt o f Appeals denying a writ is affirmed. Mint o n, C.J.; Hughes, Keller, Lambert , VanMet er, and Wright , JJ., sit t ing. All co ncur. Buckingham, J., no t sit t ing. 5 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Earl David Tipt o n, pro se COUNSEL FOR REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY: Andy Beshear At t o rney General o f Kent ucky To dd Dryden Ferguso n Assist ant At t o rney General Office o f Criminal Appeals 6