Opinion ID: 1759881
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: DISMISSAL OF APPELLANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RCr 11.42 MOTION

Text: Appellant argues that although RCr 11.42(2) requires that motions be signed and verified by the movant, it does not require that any motion other than the initial pleading be signed. Furthermore, even if the rule does require verification of a supplemental pleading, Appellant contends that the rule does not mandate dismissal of a supplemental pleading merely because it is not verified. Appellant urges that rigid adherence to procedural requirements in a death penalty case should not prevent an individual from fully litigating all constitutional defects in his conviction and sentence. Rather, a policy of substantial compliance in appellate procedure is required. Foxworthy v. Norstam Veneers, Inc., Ky., 816 S.W.2d 907 (1991); CR 73.02(2). A trial court's ruling on a motion to amend will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion. Graves v. Winer, Ky., 351 S.W.2d 193 (1961). In making its ruling, the trial court may consider such factors as the failure to cure deficiencies by amendment or the futility of the amendment itself. First National Bank of Cincinnati v. Hartmann, Ky.App., 747 S.W.2d 614, 616 (1988). Contrary to Appellant's assertion, we are of the opinion that although CR 73.02(2) does set forth a general theory of substantial compliance regarding the rules of appeals and motions for discretionary review, RCr 11.42 does not relate to either. Moreover, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by declining to permit a belated verification of an unverified motion that was a supplement to a previous RCr 11.42 motion which had been filed only after protracted litigation. [2] The trial court seriously reviewed and considered the voluminous pleadings in this case before deciding to strike Appellant's unauthorized pleadings. No error occurred.