Court Opinion

ID: 9378410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-10 15:04:34.517661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:20.913361
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: MARCH 3, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                            NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                    Commonwealth of Kentucky
                                Court of Appeals

                                   NO. 2022-CA-0396-MR

KEVIN ADAMS                                                         APPELLANT

                    APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
v.                    HONORABLE MARY M. SHAW, JUDGE
                           ACTION NO. 95-CR-002274

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                              APPELLEE

                                          OPINION
                                         AFFIRMING

                                         ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: CALDWELL, COMBS, AND LAMBERT, JUDGES.

COMBS, JUDGE: Appellant, Kevin Adams, pro se, appeals from an order of the

Jefferson Circuit Court denying his motion to vacate the final judgment and order

of sentence under CR1 60.02. After our review, we affirm.

1
    Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
            The underlying facts are summarized in this Court’s Opinion rendered

in a prior appeal, Adams v. Commonwealth, No. 2008-CA-000793-MR, 2010 WL

1132807, at *1 (Ky. App. Mar. 26, 2010), as follows in relevant part:

                   In April 1995, Adams admittedly strangled Helen
            N. Kirk, causing her death. Adams maintains that Kirk’s
            death was accidental, occurring while the couple was
            engaged in consensual erotic asphyxiation. . . . Adams
            was charged with first-degree rape, first-degree burglary,
            first-degree robbery, and tampering with physical
            evidence. The Commonwealth indicated it was going to
            seek the death penalty and, in lieu of taking that
            risk, Adams entered a guilty plea to murder, first-degree
            rape, first-degree burglary, and tampering with evidence.
            The court accepted Adams’s plea and sentenced him to
            life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for
            twenty-five years.

                   Following the court’s imposition of judgment and
            sentencing, Adams filed a Kentucky Rule of Criminal
            Procedure (RCr) 11.42 motion. In that
            motion, Adams argued that his counsel had been
            ineffective because they: failed to adequately prepare;
            failed to advise him that he could have chosen to have a
            jury impose sentence after entering his guilty plea; failed
            to retain an expert to determine his competency; and
            failed to establish that he lacked the requisite intent to
            commit murder and burglary. The trial court
            denied Adams’s motion . . . . This Court affirmed . . . .

                    After attempting to obtain relief from the federal
            courts, Adams filed the CR 60.02 motion that is the
            subject of this [the prior] appeal. As he did in his RCr
            11.42 motion, Adams argued that his plea was not
            knowing or voluntary, although for arguably different
            reasons than he previously asserted.

            ....

                                        -2-
                Adams has not presented any credible arguments or
                evidence that he did not or could not have known of the
                existence of those issues when he filed his RCr 11.42
                motion. Therefore, Adams is foreclosed from raising
                those issues via a CR 60.02 motion, and we affirm the
                trial court’s denial of Adams’s motion.

                On April 21, 2021, Adams filed another motion for relief pursuant to

CR 60.02(d), (e), and (f), requesting that his sentence be vacated. Adams argued

that when he was reviewed for parole on July 8, 2020, the parole board told him

that his PSI (pre-sentence investigation) report contained information that his

victim was scared of him. He claimed that the parole board used that information

against him in issuing a serve-out on his sentence. Adams contended that the

Commonwealth’s attorney erred in allowing information that the victim feared him

to be placed in his file when the findings of the Commonwealth’s attorney were to

the contrary. Adams also argued that the trial court erred in not examining the PSI

report to ensure its accuracy before imposing his sentence, citing KRS2 532.050.

Adams submitted that as he had “no right to view the pre-sentence report nor to

obtain a copy . . . from corrections, [he] could not have known about the

inaccuracies through due diligence until the parole board hearing . . . and the claim

must be accredited towards the consideration of new evidence.”

2
    Kentucky Revised Statutes.

                                           -3-
             By order entered March 15, 2022, the circuit court denied Adams’s

motion as follows in relevant part:

                    As pointed out by the Commonwealth in its
             responsive brief, Mr. Adams had ample opportunity to
             review the PSI and suggest corrections during his
             sentencing hearing on December 7, 1995. The trial court
             explicitly asked Mr. Adams and counsel if they had
             reviewed the PSI and whether the PSI required any
             corrections. Counsel answered that they reviewed the
             PSI and it needed no corrections. Conversely, the
             Commonwealth moved to correct the PSI by including
             Ms. [sic] Adams’ criminal record. Thereafter, counsel
             for Mr. Adams requested to review the information from
             discovery before it was added to the record, and the trial
             court responded that the information would be made
             available.

                   Mr. Adams mistakes the requirement KRS
             532.050(6) places upon courts. The statute reads as
             follows:

                  Before imposing sentence, the court shall
                  advise the defendant or his or her counsel of
                  the factual contents and conclusion of any
                  presentence investigation or psychiatric
                  examinations and afford a fair opportunity
                  and a reasonable period of time, if the
                  defendant so requests, to controvert them.
                  The court shall provide the defendant’s
                  counsel a copy of the presentence
                  investigation report. It shall not be necessary
                  to disclose the sources of confidential
                  information.

             After a review of the record, the Court is satisfied that
             these requirements were followed during Mr. Adams’
             sentencing hearing. Contrary to his assertions otherwise,
             he had ample opportunity to review the PSI and move to

                                        -4-
             correct it as he saw fit, which is all the statute
             necessitates. See [Commonwealth] v. Bush, 740 S.W.2d
             943 (Ky. 1987). Accordingly, Mr. Adams’ motion must
             be denied.

             Adams has appealed this order. “We review the denial of a CR 60.02

motion under an abuse of discretion standard. The test for abuse of discretion is

whether the trial judge’s decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or

unsupported by sound legal principles.” Stoker v. Commonwealth, 289 S.W.3d

592, 596 (Ky. App. 2009) (citations omitted).

             In his appeal now before us, Adams reargued his case. We have

reviewed the video recording of the December 7, 1995, sentencing proceeding; we

are satisfied that the requirements of KRS 532.050(6) were followed. We agree

with the circuit court that Adams had ample opportunity to review the PSI report

and to move to correct it as he saw fit, which is all that the statute requires.

Accordingly, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Adams’s

motion.

             We affirm the order of the Jefferson Circuit Court.

             ALL CONCUR.

                                           -5-
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:     BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Kevin L. Adams, pro se    Daniel Cameron
West Liberty, Kentucky    Attorney General of Kentucky

                          Courtney J. Hightower
                          Assistant Attorney General
                          Frankfort, Kentucky

                         -6-