Court Opinion

ID: 9685890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:07:58.348807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:12.836796
License: Public Domain

IMPORTANT NOTICE
        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION

THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED “NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.”
PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, RAP 40(D), THIS
OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE
CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER
CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER,
UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS,
RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR
CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED
OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE
BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR
CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN
UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A
COPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG
WITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO
THE ACTION.
                                               RENDERED: AUGUST 24, 2023
                                                    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

               Supreme Court of Kentucky
                               2023-SC-0105-OA

MICHAEL VAUGHAN                                                    PETITIONER

V.                           IN SUPREME COURT

HONORABLE LARRY E. THOMPSON, CHIEF                               RESPONDENT
JUDGE, KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS

AND

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY;                          REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
HONORABLE JERRY CROSBY II,
JUDGE, OLDHAM CIRCUIT COURT;
JOSHUA CANUPP; JOHN GEISLER;
MARK RICE; RAVONNE SIMS;
DURRELL ST. CLAIR

                            OPINION AND ORDER

                       DENYING WRIT OF MANDAMUS

      Michael Vaughan petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus, arguing

the Kentucky Court of Appeals has violated his First and Fourteenth

Amendment rights under the federal Constitution, as well as his right to access

the courts under Section 14 of the Kentucky Constitution. The basis for this

writ is that Vaughan sought to file a 148-page brief in the Court of Appeals

regarding the merits of his appeal currently pending in that court. The Court of

Appeals denied his motion to exceed the page limit. Vaughn argues said order
denies him access to the courts, is a restriction on his freedom of speech, and

violates due process.

      Our jurisdiction to entertain an original writ action regarding the action

or inaction of the Court of Appeals is conferred by Section 110(2)(a) of the

Kentucky Constitution. The Rules of Appellate Procedure state that in the

Court of Appeals, an Appellant’s initial brief “shall not exceed 8,750 words or

20 pages if computer generated and shall not exceed 25 pages if handwritten or

typewritten.” RAP 31(G)(2)(A). Although no rule explicitly authorizes a party to

file a motion to dispense with or exceed page limits in their briefing, such

motions are not unknown and are granted or denied on a case-by-case basis.

In other words, whether to allow a party to exceed page limits in their briefing

is discretionary.

      A writ of mandamus, however, is only available “to compel a public

officer to perform a ministerial duty . . . .” Hamblen ex. rel. Byars v. Kentucky

Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 322 S.W.3d 511, 517 (Ky. App. 2010). A

ministerial duty is “one that requires only obedience to the orders of others, or

when the officer's duty is absolute, certain, and imperative, involving merely

execution of a specific act arising from fixed and designated facts.” Yanero v.

Davis, 65 S.W.3d 510, 522 (Ky. 2001). “While mandamus will lie to set a court

in motion, it cannot be used to control the result.” Kaufman v. Humphrey, 329

S.W.2d 575, 576 (Ky 1959) (quoting Hargis v. Swope, 114 S.W.2d 75, 77 (Ky.

1938)).

                                         2
      In this case, Vaughan filed a motion seeking to be allowed to file a 148-

page brief, well-beyond the page limits allowed in RAP 31(G)(2)(A). The Court of

Appeals considered that motion and denied it. The court’s order denying the

motion expressly allowed Vaughan thirty additional days to file a brief in

conformity with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Court of Appeals has no

ministerial duty to allow a party to exceed page limits in their briefing when

requested. The decision is wholly discretionary. Therefore, a writ of mandamus

cannot lie. Vaughan’s petition is denied.

      Bisig, Conley, Keller, Lambert, Nickell, and Thompson, JJ., sitting. All

concur. VanMeter, C.J., not sitting.

      ENTERED: August 24, 2023.

                                        _______________________________________
                                        DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE

                                        3