Court Opinion

ID: 9940846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-15 16:07:00.55037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:54.103948
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: FEBRUARY 15, 2024
                                                        TO BE PUBLISHED

              Supreme Court of Kentucky
                              2023-SC-0178-DG

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                           APPELLANT

                   ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS
V.                          NO. 2022-CA-0296
                 FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT NO. 13-CR-01190

AHMAD RASHAD DAVIS                                                   APPELLEE

               OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE KELLER

                                 REVERSING

      The Commonwealth of Kentucky appeals the Fayette Circuit Court’s

decision to grant Ahmad Rashad Davis’s petition to expunge a charge of theft

by deception. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court. This Court

granted discretionary review, and we now reverse.

                         FACTS AND BACKGROUND

      In November 2013, Davis was indicted in Fayette Circuit Court for

Medicaid fraud (Count 1) and theft by deception ($10,000 or more) (Count 2)

for defrauding Medicaid of $14,505.36 by falsifying timesheets over the course

of two years. In May 2014, the Commonwealth and Davis entered into a plea

agreement in which Davis agreed to plead guilty to Medicaid fraud in exchange

for the Commonwealth’s recommendation to the trial court that, among other
things, Davis’s theft by deception charge be dismissed. The trial court later

accepted Davis’s plea of guilty.

      The trial court’s final judgment states as follows: “The defendant having

entered a plea of guilty on the 30th day of May 2014, and the court having

adjudged the defendant guilty of the crime; Count 1, Present Fraudulent

Claims to Defraud KMAP > $300., and the Dismissal of Count 2.” The trial

court sentenced Davis to one year of imprisonment, probated for three years or

until restitution was paid in full.

      In December 2021, Davis filed a petition with the Fayette Circuit Court 1

to expunge the theft by deception charge the trial court had dismissed.

Pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 431.076(1)(b), dismissed charges

that were not dismissed “in exchange for a guilty plea to another charge” are

eligible to be expunged upon request. In filing his form petition for

expungement, Davis checked a box attesting that his theft by deception charge

was not dismissed in exchange for a guilty plea. The Commonwealth objected

to Davis’s petition and argued to the circuit court that Davis’s theft by

deception charge was statutorily ineligible for expungement under KRS

431.076(1)(b), because it was, in fact, dismissed in exchange for his guilty plea

to his Medicaid fraud charge. The circuit court, without holding a hearing on

the matter, granted Davis’s petition. In issuing its form expungement order, the

circuit court failed to check the proper box denoting that it had made a finding

      1 A different trial judge entertained Davis’s petition for expungement than the

one who sentenced him in 2014.

                                           2
of fact that Davis’s charge had not been dismissed in exchange for a guilty plea

to another offense.

      The Commonwealth filed a Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 59.05

motion to alter, amend, or vacate the circuit court’s judgment. Davis did not

file a response to the Commonwealth’s motion, did not attend the circuit

court’s subsequent videoconference hearing on the matter, and has not

participated in any of the proceedings before the Court of Appeals or this

Court. 2 At the videoconference hearing on the Commonwealth’s motion to alter,

amend, or vacate, the circuit court explained to the Commonwealth that it had

reviewed the 2014 judgment dismissing Davis’s theft by deception charge and

found no language indicating that dismissal was conditioned on a guilty plea to

another offense. The circuit court stated that the “judgment is the law of the

case.” In its subsequent order, the circuit court reiterated that it “looks to the

Judgment entered in this case, which does not reflect the idea that this charge

was dismissed in exchange for a guilty plea. The Judgment is the record in the

case, and the Court will not look to extraneous matters to interpret a document

that is clear on its face.” This Court interprets the circuit court’s order as

      2 Davis did not file an appellee brief with this Court, and it is unclear whether

Davis appears before this Court pro se or represented by counsel. The Commonwealth
refers to Davis as pro se, but we observe that the circuit court served its Order
denying the Commonwealth’s Motion to Amend, Alter, or Vacate on the attorney that
previously represented Davis in his underlying criminal proceedings. Nonetheless, “[i]f
the appellee’s brief has not been filed within the time allowed, the court may: (a)
accept the appellant’s statement of the facts and issues as correct; (b) reverse the
judgment if appellant’s brief reasonably appears to sustain such action; or (c) regard
the appellee’s failure as a confession of error and reverse the judgment without
considering the merits of the case.” Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure (RAP)
31(H)(3). Employing our discretion, this Court declines to penalize Davis.

                                           3
reaching a legal conclusion that it was precluded from considering anything

other than the sentencing court’s 2014 judgment in determining whether

Davis’s charge was dismissed in exchange for a guilty plea.

      The Commonwealth appealed the circuit court’s grant of Davis’s

expungement petition, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s

decision to rely only on the 2014 judgment to determine Davis’s expungement

eligibility. The Majority of that panel reasoned that “[i]t is the judgment that is

the final word as to what has taken place in Davis’s case”—not the parties’ plea

agreement.

      This Court granted the Commonwealth’s motion for discretionary review,

and we now reverse the Court of Appeals because we conclude that, as a

matter of law, the circuit court was permitted to look beyond the 2014

judgment to determine Davis’s expungement eligibility.

                                    ANALYSIS

      We review the lower courts’ legal conclusions de novo. Wieland v.

Freeman, 671 S.W.3d 253, 256 (Ky. 2023).

      At its simplest of definitions, a “judgment” can be understood to be any

order which conveys “[a] court’s final determination of the rights and

obligations of the parties in a case.” Judgment, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed.

2019). In the criminal context, “[f]inal judgment . . . means sentence. The

sentence is the judgment.” Commonwealth v. Carneal, 274 S.W.3d 420, 427

(Ky. 2008) (quoting Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 156 (2007)). This Court,

having promulgated our Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr), has

                                         4
specified the necessary components of a trial court’s final judgment of

conviction:

      A judgment of conviction shall set forth the plea, the verdict or
      findings, the adjudication and sentence, a statement as to whether
      the defendant is entitled to bail, the amount of bail and the day of
      the execution of a death sentence, which shall be at least thirty
      (30) days after the entry of the judgment. If two (2) or more
      sentences are imposed, the judgment shall state whether they are
      to be served concurrently or consecutively.

RCr 11.04(1).

      Notably, our rule does not require the trial court’s judgment to set forth

the circumstances that gave rise to dismissal of a charge in the indictment or,

more specifically, whether that dismissal was conditioned on a plea to another

charge. Simply, a trial court’s judgment is intended to set forth “what,” whereas

the language of KRS 431.076(1)(b) (“not in exchange for a guilty plea to another

charge”) asks the reviewing court to answer “why?”

      Having no statutory obligation to detail the conditions of dismissal in its

judgment, it is perhaps no surprise that the trial court that sentenced Davis

declined to include such particulars. Practically then, we observe that a

subsequent trial court charged with determining whether a dismissal was

conditioned on a guilty plea—and thus ineligible for expungement under KRS

431.076(1)(b)—must often look beyond the final judgment. Instead, that court

is forced to look to other evidence in the record, like the parties’ plea

agreement—a practice not all so unfamiliar when determining a defendant’s

expungement eligibility. See, e.g., Rhodes v. Commonwealth, 417 S.W.3d 762

(Ky. App. 2013) (plea agreement was evidence that defendant’s felony charges

                                         5
were dismissed without prejudice); Rashad v. Commonwealth, No. 2017-CA-

000628-MR, No. 2017-CA-000777-MR, 2018 WL 4381551 (Ky. App. Sept. 14,

2018) (plea agreement was evidence that defendant’s felony charge was

dismissed in exchange for guilty plea to another offense); Moore v.

Commonwealth, No. 2018-CA-001090-MR, 2020 WL 39972 (Ky. App. Jan. 3,

2020) (plea agreement was evidence that defendant’s felony charges were

dismissed in exchange for guilty plea to another offense)).

      In fact, our expungement statutes have often asked our trial courts to

determine expungement eligibility using facts that would be traditionally found

outside the sentencing court’s judgment. KRS 431.078(4)(a) conditions

expungement of a conviction on whether that offense was “not a sex offense or

an offense committed against a child.” Likewise, KRS 431.078(4)(b) conditions

expungement eligibility on whether the defendant has been convicted of

another felony or misdemeanor in the last five years. KRS 431.078(4)(c)

requires that the petitioner seeking expungement not have any outstanding

felony or misdemeanor proceedings pending against him or her. Each of these

requirements would often, if not always, require the reviewing court to look

beyond the sentencing court’s judgment to determine the defendant’s

expungement eligibility.

      We are further unconvinced that the relationship between a trial court’s

judgment and a plea agreement precludes review of the greater record.

“Generally, plea agreements in criminal cases are contracts between the

accused and the Commonwealth, and are interpreted according to ordinary

                                        6
contract principles.” McClanahan v. Commonwealth, 308 S.W.3d 694, 701 (Ky.

2010). And it is true that “the decision to accept or reject a plea agreement is

always within the province of the trial court” because it is the trial court that

maintains ultimate sentencing authority. Covington v. Commonwealth, 295

S.W.3d 814, 817 (Ky. 2009). But where the trial court declines to speak to an

issue in its judgment, the absence of such language does not erase the

underlying facts—the judgment alone is not the entire “record” but merely the

“sentence.” Carneal, 274 S.W.3d at 427.

      We also observe that the Commonwealth, being endowed with great

authority over the dismissal of charges, will perhaps often be in a unique

position to speak to the circumstances underlying a dismissal. RCr 9.64 states

that it is only “[t]he attorney for the Commonwealth, with the permission of the

court, [that] may dismiss the indictment, information, complaint or uniform

citation prior to the swearing of the jury or, in a non-jury case, prior to the

swearing of the first witness.” “[S]ubject to rare exceptions . . . a trial judge has

no authority, absent consent of the Commonwealth’s attorney, to dismiss,

amend, or file away before trial a prosecution based on a good indictment.”

Hoskins v. Maricle, 150 S.W.3d 1, 13 (Ky. 2004).

                                   CONCLUSION

      Having determined that, as a matter of law, a circuit court may look

beyond the sentencing court’s final judgment to determine whether a dismissal

was granted in exchange for a guilty plea to another charge, we hold that the

                                          7
circuit court erred in failing to do so. We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals

and vacate the circuit court’s order granting expungement.

      VanMeter, C.J.; Bisig, Conley, Keller, Lambert and Nickell, JJ., sitting.

All concur. Thompson, J., not sitting.

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:

Russell M. Coleman
Attorney General of Kentucky

Melissa Ann Pile
Assistant Attorney General

APPELLEE PRO SE:

Ahmad Rashad Davis

                                         8