Court Opinion

ID: 9402171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-15 15:07:35.943088+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:58.150500
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        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION

THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED “NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.”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OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE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UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS,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UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A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: JUNE 15, 2023
                                                         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                 Supreme Court of Kentucky
                                 2022-SC-0365-MR

M. L. S.                                                                APPELLANT

                     ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
V.                            NO. 2022-CA-0651
                          JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
               NOS. 20-F-009095, 22-H-000405 & 22-H-000405-001

HONORABLE BRIAN C. EDWARDS,                                              APPELLEE
JUDGE, JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT

AND

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                               REAL PARTY IN INTEREST/
                                                                      APPELLEE

                    MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT

                                       AFFIRMING

      M.L.S. appeals to this Court from the Court of Appeals’ denial of a writ to

prohibit the Jefferson Circuit Court from proceeding with the Commonwealth’s

petition to involuntarily commit M.L.S. The underlying basis of the relief

sought by M.L.S. is that recently enacted KRS1 Chapter 202C, codifying the

commitment process, is unconstitutional. This Court recently considered the

same constitutional arguments raised by M.L.S. in another writ case.2 We

      1   Kentucky Revised Statutes.
        2 In September 2022, this Court heard oral argument in the combined cases of

G. P. v. Hon Angela McCormick Bisig, Judge, Jefferson Circuit Court, Div. 10., and
Commonwealth of Kentucky, Case No. 2022-SC-0011-MR; and C.M. v. Hon Annie
O’Connell, Judge, Jefferson Circuit Court, Div. 2, and Commonwealth of Kentucky, Case
concluded that the petitioners in that case, G.P. v. Bisig,3 had an adequate

remedy available by appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ denial of a writ

of prohibition. We likewise conclude M.L.S. has an adequate remedy by appeal

and affirm the Court of Appeals.

                      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

      M.L.S. was charged in Jefferson District Court with assault in the first

degree. Defense counsel moved for an evaluation to determine whether M.L.S.

was competent to stand trial. After M.L.S. was examined at the Kentucky

Correctional Psychiatric Center (KCPC), the Jefferson District Court held a

competency hearing. The District Court found M.L.S. incompetent but that

there was a substantial probability the M.L.S. might regain competency in the

foreseeable future. Pursuant to KRS 504.110, the District Court ordered

M.L.S. to return to KCPC for treatment for an additional 60 days, unless she

was found competent to stand trial within that period.

      In March 2022, the Jefferson District Court found M.L.S. incompetent

and unlikely to regain competency in the foreseeable future. On the same date,

the Commonwealth filed a petition in Jefferson Circuit Court for M.L.S.’s

involuntary hospitalization pursuant to KRS Chapter 202C,4 codifying House

Bill 310 which had been signed into law on April 1, 2021. Defense counsel

No. 2022-SC-0125-MR. The Court rendered its decision in October 2022, a few days
after M.L.S. filed the instant appeal. M.L.S. noted that her appeal raised the same
issues before the Court in those two cases.
      3   655 S.W.3d 128 (Ky. 2022).
      4   Id. at 129-30 (describing the involuntary commitment process).

                                           2
filed objections and moved the circuit court to hold House Bill 310

unconstitutional. After oral argument, the Jefferson Circuit Court denied the

motion.

      In June 2022, M.L.S. sought a second-class writ of prohibition from the

Court of Appeals asserting that the Jefferson Circuit Court erred by failing to

find House Bill 310 unconstitutional and requested that the Court of Appeals

enter a writ prohibiting the trial court from proceeding with the

Commonwealth’s petition to involuntarily commit M.L.S. The Court of Appeals

denied the petition because M.L.S. failed to show a lack of adequate remedy by

appeal or otherwise. This appeal followed.

                                   ANALYSIS

      M.L.S. asserts that KRS 202C is unconstitutional for various reasons,

including 1) the General Assembly did not comply with Kentucky constitutional

requirements for legislative procedure in passing House Bill 310; 2) KRS 202C

applies retroactively in violation of KRS 446.080 and KRS 446.110; and 3) KRS

202C does not afford incompetent defendants adequate due process protection.

M.L.S. seeks a writ of the second class, arguing that the circuit court is acting

erroneously; that a direct appeal cannot redress the injury created by litigating

her case in unconstitutional proceedings, i.e., her injuries include being forced

to participate in the proceedings and “run the gauntlet” and potentially suffer a

                                        3
loss of liberty before an appeal may taken; and that the special case exception

applies.5

      As noted above, we recently addressed the same issues and argument in

Bisig for defendants who, like M.L.S., petitioned for a writ of prohibition at the

Court of Appeals before an ultimate determination of commitment was made by

the trial court, but after being confined following the initiation of KRS 202C

proceedings. Because M.L.S. is similarly situated to the Bisig petitioners and

presents the same issues and allegations of harm, we adopt this Court’s

opinion in Bisig and incorporate it herein by reference.

      In sum, “[a] writ may not be used as a substitute for appeal or to

circumvent normal appellate procedure.”6 “Even in cases involving a claimed

constitutional defect, it is generally the law that the remedy of appeal is

adequate and prohibition is not proper.”7 Here, if the trial court enters a final

commitment order, M.L.S. may seek redress of her injuries on appeal, and

pursuant to KRS 202C.110, may also petition for a writ of habeas corpus to

question the cause and legality of the detention and request that the court

issue a writ for release.8

                                   CONCLUSION

      5   See id. at 131.
      6 Lawson v. Woeste, 603 S.W.3d 266, 276 (Ky. 2020) (citing Nat’l Gypsum Co. v.
Corns, 736 S.W.2d 325 (Ky. 1987); and Merrick v. Smith, 347 S.W.2d 537 (Ky. 1961)).
      7 Appalachian Reg’l Health Care, Inc. v. Johnson, 862 S.W.2d 868, 870 (Ky.
1993) (citation omitted).
      8   Id. at 130-32.

                                          4
      Because M.L.S. has an adequate remedy by appeal to redress her

allegations of injury, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ denial of a writ of

prohibition.

      All sitting. All concur.

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:

Elizabeth B. McMahon
Leo Gerard Smith
Louisville Metro Public Defender’s Office

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:

Daniel Cameron
Attorney General of Kentucky

Michael Robert Wajda
Assistant Solicitor General

                                         5