Court Opinion

ID: 9894845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 14:10:11.808169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:51.670332
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: OCTOBER 27, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals

                             NO. 2022-CA-1031-MR

JAMES R. HUFFMAN, IV                                                APPELLANT

              APPEAL FROM LETCHER CIRCUIT COURT
v.         HONORABLE KENT HENDRICKSON, SPECIAL JUDGE
                     ACTION NO. 14-CR-00003

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                               APPELLEE

                                   OPINION
                                  AFFIRMING

                                 ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; CETRULO AND COMBS, JUDGES.

CETRULO, JUDGE: Appellant James R. Huffman, IV, (“Huffman”) appeals, pro

se, from the Letcher Circuit Court denial of his Kentucky Rule of Criminal

Procedure (“RCr”) 11.42 motion for postconviction relief. We affirm.
                               I.    BACKGROUND

             On New Year’s Eve 2014, Huffman and his friend, Patrick Smith

(“Smith”), were celebrating in Whitesburg when they met the victims: Michael

Hogg (“Hogg”), Christopher Puckett, Stacy Phillips, and Samantha Mullins. These

two groups did not know each other prior to the events in this case. Smith was

tried separately and is not subject to this appeal.

             A little after midnight, Huffman and Smith encountered two of the

victims near StreetSide, a Whitesburg bar and grill, and conversed with them in

their vehicle, a Jeep Grand Cherokee (“Jeep”). This was a cordial interaction that

ended with Huffman and Smith walking away. The victims left the area and when

they returned to one of their apartments, they realized a bottle of liquor was

missing from the backseat of the Jeep. Assuming Huffman had stolen the bottle,

the victims returned to the StreetSide area.

             The victims found Huffman inside the bar and asked for return of the

bottle. He denied having the bottle but said he would call a friend to ask if he had

taken it. Witnesses described this interaction as non-threatening. While Huffman

was on the phone, Huffman and the victims left the bar and walked to a nearby

parking lot. Shortly thereafter, Huffman walked quickly toward the victims with

something in his hand. A fight ensued, resulting in three of the victims being

stabbed and/or cut. All the victims managed to get inside the Jeep and lock the

                                          -2-
doors. Huffman and Smith both had knives and began beating on the sides of the

Jeep and slashed its tires. The victims drove out of the parking lot, Huffman and

Smith in pursuit. Due to the Jeep’s flat tires, they could not drive to the hospital

and instead, pulled over and called 911. By the time an ambulance arrived, Hogg

was no longer breathing and was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital.

Another victim’s stab wound was deemed life-threatening, and he was airlifted to

another hospital where he later made a full recovery. A third victim’s hand was

cut and treated. After a three-week trial, Huffman was convicted of one count of

complicity to murder, three counts of attempted murder, and one count of criminal

mischief. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

             On direct appeal, Huffman alleged (1) the circuit court erred by

denying his motion for change of venue; (2) the circuit court should have struck

three of the jury pool members for cause; (3) the jury pool did not represent a fair

cross-section of the community; (4) the circuit court erred by denying his motion to

compel the presence of an out-of-state witness; (5) the circuit court erred by

denying his motion for a directed verdict on two of the attempted murder counts;

and (6) the circuit court erred by denying the admission of testimony by an expert

witness. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, but reversed one of his convictions

for attempted murder – due to insufficient evidence regarding one of the victims –

and remanded for entry of an amended judgment. James R. Huffman, IV v.

                                          -3-
Commonwealth, No. 2018-SC-000088-MR, 2019 WL 2463279 (Ky. Jun. 13,

2019). The amended judgment was entered by the circuit court.

             In June 2020, Huffman filed a motion for RCr 11.42 relief, along with

accompanying motions for a hearing to proceed in forma pauperis and for

appointment of counsel. The Commonwealth filed a motion to dismiss because the

motion was unverified. Huffman filed a duplicate motion and supporting

memorandum, arguing the June motions should be accepted. However, those

duplicative motions were also unverified. The circuit court dismissed both

motions due to lack of verification.

             In December 2021, Huffman filed a third motion for postconviction

relief pursuant to RCr 11.42. Accompanying that motion, Huffman also filed a

motion for an evidentiary hearing and appointment of counsel. In this RCr 11.42

motion, Huffman included this verification:

             The Movant James R. Huffman after being sworn under
             oath states he has read this RCr 11.42 Motion to Vacate,
             Set Aside, or Amend the final judgment pursuant to RCr
             11.42 for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, and the
             statements it contains are true and correct to the best of
             his knowledge and belief.

             On July 27, 2022, the circuit court overruled Huffman’s motions in

full (“Original Order”). The court concluded that Huffman had not met his burden

of overcoming the strong presumption that his three trial counsel’s representation

was within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Also, he had not

                                        -4-
shown that he was prejudiced by any of the claimed errors. The court determined

that an evidentiary hearing was not necessary because Huffman’s claims “either

fail[ed] to state a claim for RCr 11.42 relief while others [did] not present issue of

fact or law that cannot be conclusively resolved by an examination of the

record[.]” On July 28, the court received Huffman’s “Supplement to / Amendment

of RCr 11.42” that was stamped “filed” by the clerk on July 21.

             On August 3, 2022, the circuit court – recognizing Huffman’s right to

amend his motion – entered a supplemental order addressing Huffman’s additional

motion and new arguments (“Supplemental Order”). Again, the circuit court

walked through each of Huffman’s claims and concluded that Huffman had not

met his burden of showing his trial counsel were ineffective. This Supplemental

Order sustained Huffman’s motion to amend, but again overruled his ineffective

assistance of counsel motion. Huffman appeals.

                         II.   STANDARD OF REVIEW

             The denial of an RCr 11.42 motion is reviewed on appeal for an abuse

of the trial court’s discretion. Bowling v. Commonwealth, 981 S.W.2d 545, 548

(Ky. 1998). Abuse of discretion has been defined as being “arbitrary,

unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Commonwealth v.

English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999) (citations omitted).

                                          -5-
             To succeed on a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, one must

meet the dual prongs of “performance” and “prejudice” provided in Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984),

and Gall v. Commonwealth, 702 S.W.2d 37, 39 (Ky. 1985). First, a “defendant

must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of

reasonableness.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S. Ct. at 2064. Once deficient

performance has been established, a defendant must show prejudice; i.e., “a

reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the

proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068. In other

words, not only must the litigant prove that counsel were ineffective, but that the

ineffectiveness caused an outcome that would not have occurred but for the

ineffectiveness.

                                  III. ANALYSIS

             Before reaching the merits of the matter, we must first address two

procedural issues.

             A. Procedural Concerns

             First, Huffman’s substantive arguments are dispersed across both the

Original Order and the Supplemental Order. The Commonwealth argues that by

only naming the Supplemental Order in his notice of appeal, the issues addressed

in the Original Order are not properly before this Court. We disagree. The

                                          -6-
Supplemental Order essentially absorbed the Original Order by stating “this Order

[] supplements, and does replace, the court’s [O]riginal Order entered July 27,

2022[.]”

               Additionally, the Kentucky Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized

“the importance of hearing cases on the merits and preserving the constitutional

right to an appeal, casting dismissal as a disfavored remedy for a violation of

procedural rules.” Ky. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Conley, 456 S.W.3d 814, 818

(Ky. 2015) (citing Ready v. Jamison, 705 S.W.2d 479, 481-82 (Ky. 1986)). As

such, we shall treat this appeal as encompassing both the Original Order and the

Supplemental Order, and only those orders.1

               Second, the circuit court questioned its jurisdiction due to the wording

of Huffman’s verification. RCr 11.42 requires verification of the allegations made

therein:

               (2) The motion shall be signed and verified by the movant
               and shall state specifically the grounds on which the
               sentence is being challenged and the facts on which the
               movant relies in support of such grounds. Failure to
               comply with this section shall warrant a summary
               dismissal of the motion.

1
  The circuit court dismissed Huffman’s prior RCr 11.42 motions for egregious errors in
verification. Huffman did not appeal those RCr 11.42 motion denials, and those orders are not
before us on review. We note, when RCr 11.42 motions are dismissed on jurisdictional grounds,
like failure to properly verify, they do “not serve as an adjudication on the merits.” See Williams
v. Commonwealth, No. 2017-CA-001794-MR, 2019 WL 4389159, at *1, *3 (Sep. 13, 2019).
That means subsequent RCr 11.42 motions “would not be successive.” Id.

                                               -7-
               Huffman’s verification ended with “the statements it contains are true

and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.” The court questioned if “the

verification should have stopped with ‘true and correct’ to comply with the

purpose of the RCr 11.42 verification requirement – that in making allegations, the

movant is subject to prosecution for perjury for falsehoods.” The court opined as

to whether the qualifier “to the best of his knowledge and belief” undermines the

verification requirement. While we are cognizant of the court’s concerns, we

believe it acted correctly in proceeding to the merits. True, RCr 11.42(2) provides

that a failure to comply with its verification requirement “shall warrant a summary

dismissal of the motion.” However, here, Huffman adequately verified his motion.

               “Verification is defined as a formal declaration made in the presence

of an authorized officer, such as a notary public, by which one swears to the truth

of the statements in the document.” Taylor v. Ky. Unemployment Ins. Comm’n,

382 S.W.3d 826, 834 (Ky. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting

BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (7th ed. 1999)). Kentucky Courts have held that

substantial compliance cannot save an RCr 11.42 motion from dismissal if it was

not properly signed and verified. Bowling, 981 S.W.2d at 548. Here, however,

these circumstances are different. We find substantial compliance does save this

motion despite the addition of ambiguous language “to the best of his knowledge

and belief.”

                                          -8-
             The procedure for obtaining relief pursuant to the
             provisions of RCr 11.42 must be complied with. The
             motion for relief must be in writing, verified by the
             movant, and state specifically the grounds of challenge
             and the facts in support thereof. . . . It is jurisdictional that
             the terms and provisions of RCr 11.42 must be complied
             with, even though a substantial, and not an absolute,
             compliance is adequate.

Cleaver v. Commonwealth, 569 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Ky. 1978).

             Here, Huffman’s written declaration states that it was sworn to “under

oath”; the statements are “true and correct”; and he signed before a notary. While

the addition of the ambiguous language “to the best of his knowledge and belief” is

not best practice, we grant this pro se litigant leniency in finding he substantially

complied with the verification requirement. See Beecham v. Commonwealth, 657

S.W.2d 234, 236 (Ky. 1983) (“Pro se pleadings are not required to meet the

standard of those applied to legal counsel.”). Again, our finding of substantial

compliance is consistent with the guidance from our Kentucky Supreme Court’s

emphasis on proceeding on the merits when legally possible. Conley, 456 S.W.3d

at 818.

             B. The Merits

             As for the merits, on appeal Huffman makes an overarching, general

claim that the jury was not properly advised as to the applicable law. Specifically,

Huffman argues his trial counsel were ineffective because they did not present (1)

                                           -9-
jury instructions of reckless homicide, (2) a “choice of evils” defense, nor (3) a

proper self-defense claim.2

              First, Huffman argues “Counsel was ineffective for not requesting an

[instruction] of Reckless Homicide. . . . If such had been done, the jury would’ve

at best (and most appropriately) been properly instructed on the offense that’s most

applicable to the elements & what actually transpired.” However, the

Supplemental Order states, “Defense counsel tendered a Reckless Homicide

instruction, but the court determined it was not authorized[,]” referencing Sturgeon

v. Commonwealth, 521 S.W.3d 189 (Ky. 2017). Therefore – because defense

counsel did request reckless homicide instructions – Huffman’s issue is rooted in

the circuit court’s refusal to give the jury reckless homicide instructions, not with

his counsel’s “ineffectiveness.” As such, Huffman’s issue with jury instructions

was not due to the ineffective assistance of counsel – as is pertinent to this present

appeal – but is with the circuit court’s denial of those instructions. Issues with jury

instructions should have been challenged within Huffman’s direct appeal. Martin

v. Commonwealth, 203 S.W.3d 173, 175 (Ky. App. 2006) (citation omitted).

Issues that could have been raised at direct appeal, are not appropriate for a

subsequent RCr 11.42 motion. See Teague v. Commonwealth, 428 S.W.3d 630,

2
 Huffman argued other claims, but he waived them in his appellate reply brief, did not properly
preserve them, and/or did not argue with enough clarity to be discernible for appellate review.

                                             -10-
633 (Ky. App. 2014) (“An RCr 11.42 motion is limited to the issues that were not

and could not be raised on direct appeal.”). Therefore, this claim fails as Huffman

does not even begin to show that counsel’s representation “fell below an objective

standard of reasonableness.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S. Ct. at 2064.

             Second, Huffman argues his counsel were ineffective for failing to

present a “choice of evils” defense. He states that he “never intended the death of

Mr. Hogg . . . and only engaged in unlawful conduct to avoid the ‘beating’ he was

going to receive at the hand of the alleged victims.” However, as the circuit court

aptly stated in the Supplemental Order, Huffman was not entitled to such a

defense:

             First, under section (1) the defense is not available for
             intentional homicide. Section (2) makes the defense
             available only “when the defendant believes . . . [his
             conduct] to be necessary to avoid an imminent public or
             private injury greater than the injury which is sought to be
             prevented by the statute defining the offense charged . . . ”
             (and that his belief is not wanton or reckless). Huffman
             stabbed Michael Hogg to death and was charged with
             Complicity to Murder. Huffman himself could have
             received no greater injury at the hands of the unarmed
             Michael Hogg . . . .

                    Moreover, the choice of evils defense requires an
             imminent threat with no reasonable and viable alternative
             to criminal conduct . . . . Senay v. Commonwealth, 650
             S.W.2d 259, 260 (Ky. 1983). . . . Huffman and his co-
             defendants had cell phones. . . . From the time the two
             parties encountered each other inside the bar and began
             arguing over the missing liquor until they reached the back
             of [the bar], Huffman could have called the police, or

                                         -11-
             asked Smith to call the police, to intervene in the argument
             and thereby avoid the nightmare that followed, a point
             brought out during the trial. Huffman had a “reasonable
             and viable alternative, other than the violation of the law
             for he . . . [stood] charged.” The record evidence
             conclusively fails to support a choice of evils defense, and
             counsel was not ineffective for not pursuing that defense.

             We agree. Counsel were not ineffective for “failing” to present an

inapplicable defense. Again, Huffman does not show that his counsel’s

representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland,

466 U.S. at 688, 104 S. Ct. at 2064.

             Third, Huffman argues that his trial counsel were ineffective for

failing to “properly present self-protection and imperfect self-protection and

therefor[e] the trial judge refused to give such on jury instructions.” However,

again, Huffman’s issue is rooted in the court’s refusal to give the jury self-defense

instructions, not with this counsel’s ineffectiveness. Again, Huffman’s counsel

tendered self-defense jury instructions, but the court refused to allow them. As

such, Huffman’s issue with jury instructions was not due to the ineffective

assistance of counsel but is with the circuit court’s denial of those instructions and

was appropriate for his direct appeal, not his RCr 11.42 motion. Martin, 203

S.W.3d at 175; Teague, 428 S.W.3d at 633. It bears repeating, Huffman does not

show that his counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of

reasonableness.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S. Ct. at 2064.

                                         -12-
            Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion denying an evidentiary

hearing because the issues, as presented, could be conclusively resolved by an

examination of the record. Knuckles v. Commonwealth, 421 S.W.3d 399, 401 (Ky.

App. 2014) (citations omitted).

                               IV.   CONCLUSION

            Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion in the circuit court’s denial

of Huffman’s request for postconviction relief. As such, we AFFIRM the Letcher

Circuit Court.

            ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                      BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

James R. Huffman, IV, pro se             Daniel Cameron
LaGrange, Kentucky                       Attorney General of Kentucky

                                         Matthew R. Krygiel
                                         Assistant Attorney General
                                         Frankfort, Kentucky

                                       -13-