Opinion ID: 2540243
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Robertson's Equity Provision

Text: Finally, in light of the recent rule change creating the prison mailbox rule, we must assess the continued viability of the judicially-created equitable tolling test. In Robertson v. Commonwealth , a factually parallel case involving dismissal due to the untimely filing of a pro se prisoner's motion, a narrow majority of this Court adopted the equitable tolling testa measure applicable to prisoners who attempt to get documents timely filed, yet fail. We considered adopting a prison mailbox rule, but declined due to our reluctance to amend rules without following the formal procedures. Id. at 791. Instead, we adopted the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit's five-factor equitable tolling test. Under this amorphous balancing test, the trial court, before determining whether the deadline is tolled, must consider: (1) the petitioner's lack of notice of the filing requirement; (2) the petitioner's lack of constructive knowledge of the filing requirement; (3) diligence in pursuing one's rights; (4) absence of prejudice to the respondent; and (5) the petitioner's reasonableness in remaining ignorant of the legal requirement for filing his claim. Id. at 792 (quoting Dunlap v. United States, 250 F.3d 1001, 1008-09 (6th Cir. 2001)). At the outset, we note that the application of the multi-factor equitable tolling test is arduous, requir[ing] that the trial court engage in a more robust examination of the circumstances. Id. at 796 (Roach, J., dissenting). Moreover, we have a finite number of trial judges and time to handle an ever increasing docket of casesand by depending on `equitable tolling' to solve the problem, we have created another hearing with multiple briefs and evidentiary questions prior to the trial court's thoughtful review and ruling. Id. at 795 (Scott, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Furthermore, the adoption of equitable tolling test was a compromise provision, since there was no prison mailbox provision in place. [8] With the recent enactment of the prison mailbox rule, the burdensome equitable tolling test is now duplicative and superfluous, with its utility marginalized. Equity is the correction of that wherein the law, by reason of its universality, is deficient. Houston v. Steele, 28 S.W. 662, 663 (Ky. 1894). The prison mail box rule was crafted to remedy the procedural deficiency our rules posed to pro se inmates seeking to appeal; thus, there is no longer a need for Robertson 's equitable tolling provision. Consequently, we overrule Robertson.