Title: ROBERT HUSTON V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

State: kentucky

Issuer: Kentucky Supreme Court

Document:

,*uyrrmr f f "Pk 2008-SC-000625-MR IP RENDERED : APRIL 22, 2010 N()`I fo BE PUBLISHED v ROBERT HUSTON APPELLANT ON APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT V. HONORABLE MARTIN J . SHEEHAN, JUDGE CASE NO . 2008-CR-00168 COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING Robert Huston appeals from a. Judgment of the Kenton Circuit Court, following an unconditional plea of guilty to four counts of first-degree robbery. The trial court imposed concurrent twelve-year sentences for three of the counts and a fifteen-year sentence on the fourth count, to run consecutively for a total of twenty-seven years . Huston argues 1) that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the fifteen-year sentence to run consecutively to the other sentences, ostensibly for the purpose of sending a message to the community and 2) that the prosecutor's refusal to offer him a plea bargain was arbitrary and discriminatory . Counsel from the Department of Public Advocacy was permitted to withdraw as counsel for Huston upon filing a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S . 738, 87 S . Ct. 1396 (1967) . Subsequently, Huston filed a pro se "Points of Interest Regarding This Appeal," reiterating the two arguments set out by counsel in the Antlers brief. Because Huston's unconditional guilty plea precludes review of the claims he now asserts, we affirm the trial court's judgment . RELEVANT FACTS In December 2007, Huston robbed individuals at four businesses in Kenton County . He possessed a . firearm during these robberies and, in one instance, used it to tit one of the storekeepers . Despite the Commonwealth's refusal to offer Huston a plea agreement, he entered an unconditional guilty plea, and a sentencing hearing followed, during which Huston presented mitigation witnesses . He requested the minimum sentence on each count and that all sentences run concurrently. The Commonwealth countered by pointing out that Huston had committed four separate armed robberies, striking someone with a firearm during the commission of one of them, and that he had a prior felony conviction . Ultimately, the trial court imposed sentences of twelve years each for three of the robberies and fifteen years for the fourth robbery in which the storekeeper was hit with a gun. Although Huston, in his brief, emphasizes a particular comment by the trial court, when taken in context, it is clear that the trial court gave thorough consideration to Appellant's particular offenses when it sentenced him . Specifically, the trial court expressed hesitation to run all of the sentences concurrently as Huston had requested "because if we do that the message that we're sending out to criminals out in the county is `once you've committed one, you might as well go ahead and do a bunch more because if you get caught they're just going to run the sentences concurrent anyhow."' However, the trial court did not utilize this as the only or even primary reason for the sentence it imposed on Huston . Instead, the trial court referenced Huston's particular crimes and explained that one of the four was deserving of a greater sentence because Huston had actually used a firearm to strike a storekeeper . On appeal, Huston argues that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to run all sentences concurrently and that the prosecutor's refusal to plea bargain with him was arbitrary. ANALYSIS Huston entered an unconditional guilty plea to the four robbery charges, the effect of which was to vastly "reduce the scope of potentially appealable Windsor v . Commonwealth, 250 S.W.3d 306, 307 (Ky . 2008) (quoting issues." Roe v . Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S . 470, 480, 120 S . Ct. 1029 (2000)) . Sentencing can be one of the few issues not waived by an unconditional plea, but only where it is alleged that the sentence was not authorized, contrary to statute, or otherwise manifestly infirm . Windsor, 250 S.W .3d 306 ; Ware v. Commonwealth, 34 S.W.3d 383 (Ky. App . 2000) ; Hughes v. Commonwealth., 875 S.W .2d 99 (Ky. 1994) . Huston's claims on appeal do not fall within these limited exemptions. Furthermore, there is no basis for either of Huston's claims. As to the first claim, the record reflects that the trial court properly considered Huston's individual circumstances when imposing sentence. As to the second claim, the prosecutor has sole discretion in determining whether to engage in plea bargaining . Commonwealth v. Reyes, 764 S.W.2d 62 (Ky. 1989) . Although Huston avers in his pro se brief that his counsel.. never informed him that he could have entered a conditional guilty plea, no claim . of ineffective assistance of counsel is before us in this direct appeal . Further- , Huston concedes that his plea was voluntarily entered and he explicitly states that he is not now attempting to withdraw his plea . Accordingly, Huston . has not raised any claims that can survive his explicit waiver of his right to appeal . CONCLUSION Because Huston's unconditional guilty plea precludes review of the two claims he raises, we affirm the trial court's judgment . All sitting. All concur. APPELLANT: Robert L. Huston, #222285 Green River Correctional Complex P.O . Box 9300 Central City, KY 42330 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE : Jack Conway Attorney General Micah Brandon Roberts Assistant Attorney General Office of Criminal Appeals Office of the Attorney General 1024 Capital Center Drive, Suite 200 Frankfort, KY 40601