Opinion ID: 2271112
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Court of Appeals' Jurisdiction

Text: Appellant first contends that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider the Commonwealth's appeal from the order denying revocation of the diversion agreement. Appellant primarily rests this argument on a belief that the Court of Appeals erred in characterizing the trial court's order as final and appealable. We agree. A final or appealable judgment is a final order adjudicating all the rights of all the parties in an action or proceeding.... CR 54.01. The trial court's order denied the motion to remove Appellant from diversion because the trial court believed it lacked jurisdiction to do so. It did not purport to finally adjudicate the underlying charges. RCr 8.04(5) states: In the event that there may be a pending motion by the Commonwealth to terminate the agreement, if the Court shall rule that the motion be denied, then upon entry of said order the indictment, complaint or charges shall be dismissed with prejudice. KRS 533.258(1) likewise requires that the charges be listed as dismissed-diverted upon successful completion of diversion. No such language can be found in the trial court's order, which focused solely on its jurisdiction to consider the Commonwealth's motion to remove Appellant from diversion. It, therefore, remains for the trial court to dismiss Appellant's underlying charges. As such, the order cannot be a final and appealable order within the meaning of CR 54.01. However, the Commonwealth's appeal is from an interlocutory order. The Commonwealth's right to appeal from an interlocutory order is established by KRS 22A.020(4). In response, Appellant argues that KRS 22A.020 is unconstitutional because it is arbitrary and violates the separation of powers doctrine.