RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 15, 2023; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED



# Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2022

- CA

- 0440

- MR

CHRISTOPHER MARK JOHNSON APPELLANT

v. APPEAL FROM M C CRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT

HONORABLE TIMOTHY KALTENBACH, JUDGE

ACTION NO. 20

- CR

- 00631

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE

OPINION

AFFIRMING

**   **  **

BEFORE: COMBS, M C NEILL, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

M C NEILL, JUDGE : In 2020, Appellant, Christopher Johnson (Johnson), was

indicted by a McCracken County grand jury for second

- degree assault. With the

advice of counsel, Johnson pleaded guilty to an amended charge of first

- degree

wanton endangerment

. See Boykin v. Alabama

, 395 U.S. 238

, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23

L. Ed. 2d 274 (1969)

. Thereafter, he retained new counsel and filed a motion to

withdraw his guilty plea. An evidentiary hearing was conducted during which- 2

-

multiple witnesses testified

, including Johnson. Having carefully considered the

evidence, the trial court denied Johnson’s motion, and sentenced him to two

- years’

imprisonment in accordance with his ple a agreement. T he court issued the

following written findings:

a. [D] efendant discussed his case with at least two attorneys and an investigator at the Department of Public Advocacy prior to entering his plea. He and his counsel

discussed his case both du ring a lengthy telephonic conference and in person.

b. The defendant reviewed the evidence in his case provided in discovery with his attorney.

c. His attorneys investigated whether entry of the plea would violate the terms of his probation and he was advised that entry of a guilty plea could result in violation of his probation.

d. His attorneys were informed about the possibility of a video recording on the events leading to his charge and the defendant made an informed decision to accept a

favorab le plea without obtaining the video.

3. The Court finds there was no coercion. No evidence of coercion was presented.

For the following reasons, we affirm.

When determining whether a guilty plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, trial courts must consider the totality of the circumstances

. This inquiry is inherently fact

- sensitive and we review for

clear error.- 3

-

Commonwealth v. Patton , 539 S.W.3d 651, 653 (Ky. 2018) (internal quotation

marks and citation s omitted).

If, however, the trial court determines that the guilty plea was entered voluntarily, then it may grant or deny the motion to withdraw the plea at its discretion. This

decision is reviewed under the abuse of discretion

standard. A trial cou rt abuses its discretion when it renders a decision which is arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by legal principles.

Rigdon v. Com monwealth

, 144 S.W.3d 283, 288 (Ky. App. 2004) (footnotes

omitted ). I n support of his argument on appeal, Johnson recites the allegations

raised in his motion to withdraw

, and cites extensively to testimony presented

during the hearing. Johnson specifically alleges deficient performance of counsel

and that he “felt coerced into entering the plea.”

T o successfully establish the invalidity of a guilty plea

based upon the allegedly deficient performance of

defense counsel, the movant must satisfy both prongs of

the two

- part test set forth in Strickland v. Washington

, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984)

and restated by this Court in Bronk v. Commonwealth

, 58

S.W.3d 482, 486

- 487 (Ky. 2001). The movant must
demonstrate that: (1) defense counsel ’ s performance fell

outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance; and that ( 2) a reasonable probability exists that, but for the deficient performance of counsel, the movant would not have pled guilty, but would have insisted on going to trial. In making that determination, the trial court must indulge the strong presumption that

counsel ’ s conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.- 4

-

Commonwealth v. Rank , 494 S.W.3d 476, 481 (Ky. 2016) (citing Strickland

, 466

U.S. at 698 , 104 S. Ct. at 2070

.

Having reviewed the argument s and record presented

, Johnson’s

assertions either lack specificity, or are otherwise unpersuasive. I n consideration

of the totality of the circumstances

, we cannot conclude that the trial court

committed clear error, or that it ultimately abused its disc retion in denying

Johnson’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Therefore, we AFFIRM.

ALL CONCUR

.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:

Sarah D. Dailey Frankfort, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Daniel Cameron Attorney General of Kentucky

Melissa A. Pile Assistant Attorney General Frankfort, Kentucky