RENDERED: JUNE 23, 2023; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2022-CA-1347-MR

TEMMY WISE APPELLANT 

v. 

APPEAL FROM LARUE CIRCUIT COURT

HONORABLE CHARLES C. SIMMS, III, JUDGE

ACTION NOS. 20-CR-00082 AND 21-CR-00043

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE 

OPINION

AFFIRMING

**   **  **

BEFORE: EASTON, JONES, AND LAMBERT, JUDGES.

EASTON, JUDGE: Temmy Wise (“Wise”) appeals the denial of his motion to 

withdraw his guilty plea in these two related cases. Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The following factual summary is made from the presentence 

investigation, which Wise did not challenge at the time of his sentencing. Wise 

was in an on-again off-again sexual relationship with Carrie Harper (“Harper”). 
-2-

Harper has a daughter (“M.J.”). Starting when M.J. was eleven years old, Wise 

provided methamphetamine to M.J. In exchange for the methamphetamine, Wise

would obtain from M.J. sexual favors, including vaginal, oral, and eventually anal 

sex. This continued for three years. M.J. estimates this happened at least one 

hundred times. When M.J. was at the last of her three treatment placements during 

this time, Wise brought her methamphetamine. The discovery of this 

methamphetamine caused M.J. to be terminated from the treatment.

The first indictment (Case No. 20-CR-00082) followed discovery of 

methamphetamine in Wise’s home. The second indictment (Case No. 21-CR00043) resulted from M.J.’s disclosure of the sexual activities. Both the drug and 

sex charges were evidenced by text messages and video evidence. With multiple 

charges of unlawful transaction with a minor as well as rape and sodomy, Wise 

faced a potential sentence of the seventy-year maximum.

On May 13, 2022, Wise entered a guilty plea for a total sentence of 

twelve years, concurrent on both cases, or just two years more than the minimum 

Wise could have received as charged. Before the later scheduled sentencing

hearing, Wise asked the court to permit him to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial 

court appointed new counsel for the pro se motion and conducted a hearing on 

September 23, 2022. The trial court denied the withdrawal of the guilty plea.
-3-

On appeal, Wise maintains he did not understand the charges against 

him. Specifically, Wise contends he did not know what sodomy was. Wise 

contends he did not sufficiently know what he was doing and thus his plea was not 

voluntary. We will analyze both the guilty plea and the evidence at the hearing on 

the withdrawal motion as well as the rest of the record to review this primary 

question of voluntariness.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a trial court’s factual determination of whether a guilty 

plea was voluntary under a clearly erroneous standard. A finding supported by 

substantial evidence is not clearly erroneous. The trial court must consider the 

totality of the circumstances presented about a guilty plea when determining this 

fact. Rigdon v. Commonwealth, 144 S.W.3d 283, 287-288 (Ky. App. 2004). If a 

guilty plea was involuntary, a motion to withdraw it must be granted. Otherwise, 

the trial court has discretion to grant or deny the motion. We review such a 

decision under an abuse of discretion standard. “A trial court abuses its discretion 

when it renders a decision which is arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported 

by legal principles.” Id. at 288. 

ANALYSIS

While Wise is not a good speller, he was able to communicate with 

the trial court effectively. The numerous letters Wise sent to the trial court were 
-4-

sometimes drafted with the assistance of other inmates. Letters handwritten by 

Wise convey their meaning but have challenging spellings of some words. For 

example, when Wise complained he wanted to get out of his plea deal, he spelled 

deal as “deill.”

There is no question Wise has some limitations. The trial court 

ordered an evaluation for competency. Wise had no more than a seventh-grade 

education. Testing of intelligence revealed unusual results. The composite I.Q. 

score was 85, but Wise had a verbal score of 70 and a non-verbal score of 113. 

The evaluator did not diagnose an intellectual disability. On the topic of sodomy, 

the evaluator noted Wise required an explanation of the term. As we will see, this 

was not the first nor the last time what constitutes sodomy was explained to Wise.

During this case, Wise would be represented by four different public 

defenders. Wise appeared on the trial court’s docket a dozen times. At none of his 

court appearances did Wise appear hesitant or confused in his interactions with the 

trial court and counsel. Of note is the appearance on August 2, 2021, when Wise

explained to the judge about his direction to his attorney to get certain records and 

that he had asked the attorney to file a discovery motion. 

Wise did raise a question about sodomy at his third court appearance 

on June 7, 2021. In response, his first public defender informed the judge that she 

had explained this to Wise. She added that Wise understands it, he just doesn’t 
-5-

agree he should be charged with it. During his testimony at the plea withdrawal 

hearing, Wise concedes his first attorney explained things to him, but he persisted 

with his claim he did not understand.

Wise’s third public defender represented him during the guilty plea 

and later testified at the plea withdrawal hearing. This attorney was aware of 

Wise’s limitations and acted accordingly. She read everything to Wise and would 

use smaller words to help him understand. For example, when the word 

“impaired” was used, the attorney explained about not being able to understand 

because of being drunk or on drugs. 

Of particular importance, the attorney read the victim’s statements to 

Wise and explained each charge against him based on what the victim had said. 

Like what the first attorney had said at an earlier appearance, this third attorney 

also said Wise understood what sodomy was, he just didn’t like being charged with 

it.

Wise complains the prosecutor forced him to accept the plea, despite 

his sworn statement that no one was forcing him to accept the plea agreement. 

Testimony at the plea withdrawal hearing indicates it was Wise who engaged the 

prosecutor during the negotiations in the hope of helping his co-defendant, Harper. 

Wise’s attorney heard Wise ask the prosecutor about dropping the sex charges. 

Harper was charged with complicity in the sexual abuse of her daughter. With 
-6-

Wise’s plea, Harper was allowed to enter a plea with probated time on lesser 

charges.

With all this background, we examine the recording of the plea itself. 

The judge told Wise he could stop and ask questions anytime. When asked if he 

understood what his attorney had read and explained to him, Wise said he did. The 

judge read each charge and asked Wise if he understood it. When asked about the 

sodomy charge, Wise said he understood it. 

Significantly, Wise asked questions during the colloquy. In answer to 

Wise’s question, the judge explained the potential for persistent felony offender 

enhancement. At one point, the judge noticed hesitation by Wise when the judge 

notified Wise of the sex offender requirements resulting from his plea. The judge 

explained the requirements more fully, and Wise sought no further explanation.

The trial court found Wise had entered his guilty plea voluntarily. 

Substantial evidence supports this finding. It is not clearly erroneous. The trial 

court then was not required to allow the withdrawal of the guilty plea. The trial 

court exercised its discretion not to permit the withdrawal of the guilty plea. While 

the trial court may have been tempted to reject the terms of the plea because of its 

remarkable lenience, there was certainly no abuse of discretion in not permitting 

the withdrawal of the guilty plea. 
-7-

CONCLUSION

The trial court did not make any erroneous finding of fact and 

properly exercised its discretion to deny the withdrawal of Wise’s voluntary guilty 

plea. The Larue Circuit Court is AFFIRMED. 

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:

Adam Meyer

Frankfort, Kentucky

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Daniel Cameron

Attorney General

Courtney J. Hightower

Assistant Attorney General

Frankfort, Kentucky