Court Opinion

ID: 9366610
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 15:04:24.309443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:53.868811
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: JANUARY 20, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

             Commonwealth of Kentucky
                    Court of Appeals

                      NO. 2020-CA-1260-MR

JUSTIN S. WILSON                                      APPELLANT

              APPEAL FROM PULASKI CIRCUIT COURT
v.           HONORABLE JEFFREY T. BURDETTE, JUDGE
                    ACTION NO. 20-CR-00080

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                               APPELLEE

AND

                      NO. 2020-CA-1261-MR

GINGER ARD                                            APPELLANT

              APPEAL FROM PULASKI CIRCUIT COURT
v.           HONORABLE JEFFREY T. BURDETTE, JUDGE
                    ACTION NO. 18-CR-00704

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                               APPELLEE

AND

                      NO. 2020-CA-1266-MR
RONIKA PAYTON                                                      APPELLANT

                APPEAL FROM PULASKI CIRCUIT COURT
v.             HONORABLE JEFFREY T. BURDETTE, JUDGE
                      ACTION NO. 18-CR-00151

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                             APPELLEE

                           OPINION
     VACATING AND REMANDING APPEAL NOS. 2020-CA-1260-MR,
             2020-CA-1261-MR, AND 2020-CA-1266-MR

                                 ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; KAREM AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

TAYLOR, JUDGE: Justin S. Wilson brings Appeal No. 2020-CA-1260-MR from

an order summarily denying his Motion to Vacate Conviction Pursuant to RCr

11.42 and CR 60.02; Ginger Ard brings Appeal No. 2020-CA-1261-MR from an

order summarily denying her Motion to Vacate Conviction Pursuant to RCr 11.42

and CR 60.02; Ronika Payton brings Appeal No. 2020-CA-1266-MR from an

order summarily denying her Amended Motion to Vacate Conviction Pursuant to

RCr 11.42 and CR 60.02. All three orders were entered in the Pulaski Circuit

Court on September 2, 2020. For the reasons stated, we vacate and remand Appeal

Nos. 2020-CA-1260-MR, 2020-CA-1261-MR, and 2020-CA-1266-MR.

                                       -2-
              These appeals (Appeal Nos. 2020-CA-1260-MR, 2020-CA-1261-MR,

and 2020-CA-1266-MR) emanate from related underlying factual situations.

Between February 2018 and January 2020, Wilson, Ard, and Payton (collectively

referred to as appellants) were arrested and charged with multiple felonies by

Constable Michael Wallace and Constable Gary Baldock of Pulaski County,

Kentucky. After their arrest, each appellant reached a plea agreement with the

Commonwealth and subsequently entered a guilty plea.1 By separate judgments

entered in the circuit court, appellants were sentenced to punishments ranging from

pretrial diversion to twenty-years’ imprisonment.

              All three appellants subsequently filed a Motion to Vacate Conviction

Pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42 and Kentucky

Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.022 (collectively referred to as Motions to

Vacate). In their Motions to Vacate, appellants alleged that Constable Wallace and

Constable Baldock engaged in various illegal activities related to their official

1
 The offenses that each appellant pleaded guilty to are as follows: (1) Justin S. Wilson -
Trafficking in a Controlled Substance, First Degree (Methamphetamine), Possession of a
Controlled Substance, First Degree (Heroin); (2) Ginger Ard – Possession of Controlled
Substance, First Degree (Methamphetamine); and (3) Ronika Payton – three counts of
Trafficking in a Controlled Substance, First Degree (Methamphetamine), two counts of
Trafficking in a Controlled Substance (Heroin), and two counts of Possession of a Firearm by a
Convicted Felon.
2
 The Motions to Vacate Pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42 and
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02 filed on behalf of Justin S. Wilson and Ginger
Ard were essentially identical. The motion filed by Ronika Payton was entitled Amended
Motion to Vacate Conviction Pursuant to RCr 11.42 and CR 60.02. The only notable difference
was that the amended motion added the alleged facts relevant to Payton’s appeal.

                                              -3-
duties that ultimately resulted in the Constables’ arrests by the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) and their subsequent indictments in federal court. In fact, each

appellant alleged that Constable Wallace and Constable Baldock engaged in a

pattern of planting illegal drugs and/or weapons upon appellants and then

improperly coerced and intimidated appellants to enter guilty pleas. In particular,

appellants alleged in their Motions to Vacate that Constable Wallace and Constable

Baldock:

             [R]outinely violated individuals state and federal Civil
             and Constitutional Rights by searching persons, homes
             and vehicles without probable cause; Planting drugs and
             weapons. Always charging the individuals with . . .
             trafficking offenses rather than mere possession; planting
             firearms; threatening to prosecute family members of
             individuals that would not enter Guilty Pleas once the
             matter made its way into the Court System; and flat out
             stealing cash and personal items from their victims.

Motion to Vacate Conviction at 5.

             Appellants additionally maintained, in their Motions to Vacate, that

the FBI had received numerous complaints regarding illegal activities of Constable

Wallace and Constable Baldock. As a result, on September 24, 2019, appellants

maintain that an undercover FBI agent left an anonymous tip on Constable

Wallace’s drug tip line. In the tip, the undercover officer apparently described the

vehicle he was in, gave the location of the vehicle, and made an allegation that the

driver of the vehicle was possibly a drug trafficker. According to appellants, the

                                         -4-
following events allegedly occurred immediately after the agent’s call to the tip

line:

             Constable Wallace did not take long to arrive and
             approach the undercover vehicle which was sitting in the
             parking lot of the Somerset Mall. Upon approaching
             Constable Wallace immediately removed the undercover
             agent from his vehicle. (Civil Rights Violation 1). The
             undercover agent was then searched and handcuffed.
             (Civil Rights Violation[s] 2 and 3). Constable Wallace
             circled the vehicle with his K-9 and then claimed the dog
             “hit” on the driver’s door. The dog, however, simply
             circled the vehicle according to aerial surveillance.
             Constable Wallace then contacted Deputy Travis Bell of
             the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office and asked that Bell’s
             K-9-unit travel from Wayne County to Somerset Mall so
             Bell’s K-9 could sniff the undercover’s vehicle. While
             waiting on Deputy Bell’s arrival, Constable Wallace put
             his K-9 inside of the vehicle. (Civil Rights Violation 4).
             Deputy Bell arrived and ran his dog around the vehicle.
             When interviewed after the fact Deputy Bell confirmed
             that his dog did not “hit” and that based upon his dog’s
             behavior he would not have searched the vehicle.
             Constable Wallace also contacted Burnside Police
             Officer Eric Thomas and requested he conduct a field
             sobriety test on the agent. It was very common for the
             Constables to involve legitimate law enforcement
             officers in their illegal activities and conspiracy in hopes
             to hide their illegal deeds and to bolster their case if it
             went to Court. Officer Thomas arrived at the scene and
             conducted a field sobriety test on the undercover agent.
             Officer Thomas informed both Constables that he found
             no indication of intoxication. Instead of releasing the
             undercover agent and apologizing for violating his civil
             rights Wallace and Baldock searched the vehicle and
             seized a Red Roof Inn room key and cash. (Civil Rights
             Violations 5, 6 and 7). At no point did Constables
             Wallace or Baldock perform any field sobriety test
             themselves on the undercover agent. Although no drugs

                                         -5-
were located on the undercover agent’s person or vehicle,
and no other violations were evident, the agent was then
transported by the Constables to the Red Roof Inn.
Constable Wallace obtained a Search Warrant for the
hotel room belonging to the room key located in the
undercover agent’s vehicle. (Civil Rights Violation 8).

       The Search Warrant Affidavit provided under
Penalty of Perjury to the Court to obtain a Search
Warrant for the Red Roof Inn hotel room contained what
we now know to be information clearly inconsistent and
contradictory to the reality of what happened at the
scene. The Search Warrant Affidavit states that
Constable Wallace was given the hotel room number by
the informant who provided the tip – FALSE. It also
stated that he observed a vehicle approach the agent’s
car, and then quickly leave following a short meeting –
FALSE. In addition, Wallace provided in the Affidavit
that he observed a change in the agent’s behavior during
questioning – FALSE. We now know due to the Federal
Indictments of the Constables that the undercover agent
had been immediately removed from the vehicle with NO
questioning. (Civil Rights Violations 9, 10 and 11).

       Once a Search Warrant was issued by the Court for
the room to which the key belonged based upon
Constable Wallace’s perjury, Wallace and Baldock then
entered the undercover agent’s hotel room where both the
agent and the room itself were searched thoroughly.
(Civil Rights Violation[s] 12 and 13). No drugs,
weapons, or any other illegal item was located on the
agent’s person or inside the hotel room. Constables
Wallace and Baldock then attempted to intimidate the
undercover agent with a long prison sentence if he did
not reveal the location of drugs. (Civil Rights Violation
14). Throughout the encounter, the agent repeatedly
denied being involved with controlled substances. When
no drugs were located and the agent had continually
denied any drug involvement, Constable Baldock
contacted Officer Thomas and asked what a Uniform

                           -6-
            Citation should say if someone were to be properly
            arrested for Public Intoxication. Constable Baldock then
            wrote a Uniform Citation for Public Intoxication
            consistent with the advice he was given and Wallace
            signed the Citation. (Civil Rights Violation 15). The
            undercover agent [was] then transported to the Pulaski
            County Detention Center (PCDC) and lodged in custody
            of the jail. The agent’s vehicle and cash were seized by
            the Constables. (Civil Rights Violation[s] 16 and 17).
            Following the undercover agent’s arrest, the FBI quickly
            arranged for the agent’s release from custody. Constable
            Wallace was contacted by a Deputy Jailor of PCDC who
            proceeded to inform Wallace that the individual he had
            just lodged in jail had walked out and into an awaiting
            black vehicle. It is presumed that the Judge who ordered
            the release of the FBI agent at the FBI’s request was
            former Pulaski Circuit Court Judge, Honorable David A.
            Tapp. Following the FBI sting and release of the
            undercover agent, Judge Tapp recused himself from all
            Criminal matters before him which involved Constable
            Mike Wallace.

Motion to Vacate Conviction at 7-9.

            Appellants also maintained, in their Motions to Vacate, that the FBI

ultimately obtained warrants of arrest for Constable Wallace and Constable

Baldock. Appellants assert that due to the FBI’s knowledge that the Constables

were armed, had exhibited a brazen disregard for the law, and lacked any written

policies or chain of command, the FBI planned to arrest Constable Wallace and

Constable Baldock during the early morning hours with the use of an FBI SWAT

team.

                                       -7-
             In appellants’ Motions to Vacate, it was further noted that on March 6,

2020, the FBI and other law enforcement arrived at Constable Baldock’s home

with their vehicle’s emergency lights activated. Using a loud speaker, the FBI

apparently announced their presence, stated they had a warrant for Baldock’s

arrest, and ordered Baldock to come outside of the house; Baldock never

responded. The FBI SWAT team allegedly breached the front and back door of the

residence but did not enter. An agent apparently observed an individual, later

identified as Constable Baldock, behind a wall in a defensive posture and holding a

handgun. Appellants’ alleged that Baldock was ordered to drop his weapon but

instead brandished his weapon before firing upon the FBI agents. The FBI then

returned fire, and Baldock again fired his weapon striking an FBI agent.

             In their Motions to Vacate, appellants further asserted that the FBI

sent a robot with a camera into the house and observed Baldock, still in an

aggressive posture, with the handgun. Baldock, who was bleeding from his chest,

was apparently convinced to come to the front door and was transported to the

hospital. Appellants also maintained that despite Baldock giving a statement to the

FBI that he had never taken drug evidence into his custody, methamphetamine and

scales were found in his vehicle.

             In all three cases, the circuit court denied the Motions to Vacate

without an evidentiary hearing by orders entered September 2, 2020. The circuit

                                         -8-
court reasoned that appellants’ guilty pleas were voluntarily entered based upon its

review of the guilty plea colloquy of each appellant. These appeals follow.

             To resolve these appeals, we shall initially set forth the alleged

underlying facts asserted by each appellant.

                                       FACTS

                                   Justin Wilson

             The underlying facts relevant to Wilson were alleged in his Motion to

Vacate as follows:

                    On January 31, 2020, Mr. Justin Wilson was at his
             home on Pond Meadow Road, Somerset, Kentucky,
             when he heard a loud knock on his door around midnight.
             Constable Wallace and Constable Baldock were at his
             home to execute a Search Warrant. Both Wallace and
             Baldock searched his home where they allegedly found
             heroin, crystal meth, and digital scales according to the
             Uniform Citation that Wallace later issued. According to
             Wallace and Baldock, Mr. Wilson tried to run out of the
             home and failed to listen to commands. They also
             alleged Mr. Wilson resisted 45 minutes later when he
             was actually taken into custody. Wallace and Baldock
             alleged that over 14 grams of Methamphetamine were
             located in Mr. Wilson’s home, over 3 grams of Heroin, 2
             sets of digital scales, 3 unidentified orange pills, and
             $140 in cash. Mr. Wilson was charged with one count of
             Trafficking in a Controlled Substance for the alleged
             Heroin; one count of Trafficking in a Controlled
             Substance for the alleged Methamphetamine; one count
             of Fleeing and Evading, 2nd Degree (on foot); and one
             count of Resisting Arrest. He was lodged in the Pulaski
             County Detention Center.

                                         -9-
                   Mr. Wilson asserts that he had no Heroin in his
            home, he did not flee or resist arrest, and that Wallace
            and Baldock illegally seized $1,900 in cash, although all
            records show only the $140 was reported and/or logged
            into evidence. Although he reports he did possess a
            small amount of Methamphetamine for his personal use,
            he had no where near the amount alleged by Wallace and
            Baldock. Pressure was placed on Mr. Wilson to accept a
            “Rocket Docket” offer which consisted of pleading guilty
            to amended charges of Trafficking in Methamphetamine,
            1st Degree, less than 2 grams; and Possession of a
            Controlled Substance, 1st Degree, Heroin. All other
            charges would be dismissed. On or about the 20th of
            February 2020, Mr. Wilson entered into the “Rocket
            Docket” plea and agreed to forfeiture of items seized,
            specifically the $140 in cash. He is now wrongfully
            serving a 5-year prison sentence and has not received the
            stolen $760 in cash which was pocketed by Constable
            Wallace and Constable Baldock. Mr. Wilson has
            retained the undersigned to file post-conviction motions
            [in an] attempt to retrieve his stolen money. Mr.
            Wilson’s guilty plea was not made voluntarily and the
            Court should allow him to withdraw his guilty plea and
            proceed to a jury trial.

June 23, 2020, Motion to Vacate at 48-49.

                                   Ginger Ard

            Ard alleged the relevant underlying facts regarding her encounter with

Constables Wallace and Baldock in her Motion to Vacate:

                    On October 25, 2018, Ms. Ard was home in her
            camper located off W Hwy 80, Nancy, Kentucky. A
            little after midnight, she heard a loud knock on her door.
            She opened it to find Constable Wallace and Constable
            Baldock. Wallace immediately began threatening her
            that he was going to take her to jail. She was alone and
            scared so when Wallace, along with Baldock as his

                                       -10-
witness, asked to come in, she allowed it. They
continuously asked her where the drugs and money were
located in the camper. Wallace also told her that he had
arrested her boyfriend, James Abbott, the day before.
Wallace proceeded to search the camper and after a
period of time, “found” a green box sitting on the kitchen
table area of the small camper. Ms. Ard immediately
denied that the box belonged to her and maintains to this
day that she had never seen it prior to Wallace and
Baldock searching her camper. Wallace insisted she was
lying about the box. He took the mysterious green box
into custody, as well as a shotgun which was registered to
Ms. Ard’s son. It should be noted that the shotgun was
never logged into evidence and is missing to this day.
Wallace left the camper with Ms. Ard in custody,
charging her with one count of trafficking in
methamphetamine, 1st Degree, 1st Offense, less than 2
grams. Ms. Ard was almost immediately offered a
“Rocket Docket” deal just 2 weeks after her arrest by
Wallace. The offer consisted of a Pre-Trial Diversion for
2 years and on advice of Appointed Counsel, Ms. Ard
states that she waived her right to a Preliminary Hearing
before the District Court, waived Indictment by the
Grand Jury, and entered her “Rocket Docket” Plea on
November 8, 2018[,] by the Court. She was sentenced to
Pre-Trial Diversion upon entry of her plea on the
November 8th court date.

       Unfortunately for Ms. Ard, during the pendency of
her Pre-Trial Diversion (PTD), she has been accused of
violating the terms. On September 13, 2019, an Arrest
Warrant was issued for an alleged violation. No bail was
set upon issuance of the Warrant and the Court noted that
the Defendant was not allowed to post a bond once
arrested for the alleged violation. The revocation of her
PTD was set for October 2019 and she was referred for
evaluation to see if she qualified for drug court.
Although it was initially determined that Ms. Ard was
not eligible for drug court in October, in November of
2019, she was permitted to participate [in] drug court

                          -11-
            rather than go to jail. Her agreement to participate in the
            drug court program added an additional amount of time
            of strict supervision on to her original Pre-Trial
            Diversion time period. The undersigned makes no
            arguments that drug court is not a life-changing
            experience for addicts that want to receive the help they
            need. However, Ms. Ard maintains that she is not an
            addict, and now faces years of strict supervision and
            future revocation motions, all of which began by an
            illegal search and arrest by Wallace and Baldock.

                   Ms. Ard would not be in the system at all if not for
            Wallace and Baldock’s false statements and planted
            evidence in her camper. While Ms. Ard must allow the
            government to watch her every move for years to come,
            Constable Wallace is allowed to enjoy a pre-trial release
            from the Federal Court. Ms. Ard deserves justice and
            peace from intrusion by the government into her life due
            to her Constitutional Rights being violated in numerous
            ways by both Wallace and Baldock. The Court should be
            made aware of the truth of the original underlying
            charges so that Ms. Ard can finally receive finality and
            justice. She would also like to have her son’s shotgun
            returned to her (registered in her son’s name), which to
            the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, continues to be
            in the possession of Constable Wallace and/or Constable
            Baldock.

June 17, 2020, Motion to Vacate at 47-49.

                                  Ronika Payton

            Payton alleged the following underlying facts as to her experience

with Constables Wallace and Baldock in her Motion to Vacate:

                  On February 10, 2018, Ms. Payton was a guest in a
            room at the Red Roof Inn located in Somerset, Kentucky.
            While in the room, someone knocked loudly on the door
            and announced “housekeeping”. [sic] Ms. Payton did not

                                       -12-
            open the door. Then another knock on the door was
            heard along with a voice which announced himself as
            “Law Enforcement” along with an order to open the
            door. Thereafter, without consent, Constable Wallace
            entered the hotel room and proceeded to search it. By the
            time all was said and done, Wallace had arrested
            everyone in the hotel room. Ms. Payton was charged by
            Constable Wallace with multiple gun and drug offenses.
            Ms. Payton strongly asserts that she was not trafficking
            drugs, nor did she have possession of any weapons,
            including any firearms. Ms. Payton believes that
            Constable Wallace planted the evidence against her and
            threatened her that he would be taking the charges to
            Federal Court where the penalty would be much greater
            if she did not plead guilty to her charges. Ms. Payton
            reluctantly entered into a “Rocket Docket” deal and was
            sentenced to 20 years in prison.

June 30, 2020, Amended Motion to Vacate at 48-49.

                                   ANALYSIS

            Appellants assert that the circuit court committed reversible error by

denying their Motions to Vacate pursuant to RCr 11.42 and CR 60.02. Appellants

essentially claim that drugs and/or weapons were planted by Constable Wallace

and/or Constable Baldock and that appellants ultimately entered guilty pleas to

offenses that they did not commit. Appellants emphasized that they entered the

guilty pleas due to the coercion and intimidation exerted by Constable Wallace and

Constable Baldock.

            It is self-evident that the criminal conviction of an innocent person

offends both social norms of justice and the laws embodied in our Constitution. In

                                       -13-
a society whose foundations were built upon the guarantee of justice for every

citizen, the conviction of an innocent person represents a serious and egregious

violation of such guarantee. When a person previously convicted of a crime by a

jury trial or by a guilty plea can demonstrate actual innocence, it is constitutionally

incumbent upon the state to provide a postconviction procedure to attack that

judgment.3

             In Kentucky, the proper postconviction procedure to demonstrate

actual innocence is found in CR 60.02. We recognize that all three appellants

entered guilty pleas and did not proceed to a jury trial. For this reason, the circuit

court believed appellants were without a postconviction remedy. However,

considering the constitutional implications involved in a claim of actual innocence,

a postconviction procedure must be available through the courts in this

Commonwealth. Under the particular circumstances of these appeals, we believe

CR 60.02(f) provides the most appropriate avenue of relief.

             In all three cases, appellants alleged that drugs and/or weapons were

planted by Constable Wallace and Constable Baldock before appellants’ arrests

and that they were actually innocent of the charges related thereto. More

particularly, Wilson maintains that he did not possess any amount of heroin and

3
 The conviction of an innocent person arguably violates the Eighth Amendment, Fifth
Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Section Two and
Seventeen of the Kentucky Constitution.

                                          -14-
was actually innocent of the offense of Possession of a Controlled Substance, First

Degree (Heroin). Wilson also maintains that he possessed a much smaller amount

of methamphetamine (for personal use) than was reportedly seized, and thus, he

was actually innocent of Trafficking in a Controlled Substance, First Degree

(Methamphetamine).

            As to Ard, she pleaded guilty to the offense of Possession of a

Controlled Substance, First Degree (Methamphetamine), although she asserts that

she did not possess any methamphetamine. Thus, Ard argues that she is actually

innocent of Possession of a Controlled Substance, First Degree

(Methamphetamine).

            Payton claims that she was not trafficking in illegal drugs. Although

Payton pleaded guilty to three counts of Trafficking in a Controlled Substance,

First Degree (Methamphetamine), and two counts of Trafficking in a Controlled

Substance, First Degree (Heroin), Payton claims she is actually innocent of all

these drug trafficking offenses. Payton further alleges she did not possess any

weapons although she pleaded guilty to two counts of Possession of a Handgun by

a Convicted Felon. Therefore, Payton also claims actual innocence to the

possession of a firearm charge.

            Each of the three appellants has alleged that Constable Wallace and/or

Constable Baldock planted weapons and/or drugs that ultimately led to their guilty

                                        -15-
pleas as stated above. As previously set forth, Constable Wallace and Constable

Baldock were arrested by the FBI and indicted for wrongful conduct related to

their duties as constables. This conduct allegedly involved Constable Wallace

and/or Constable Baldock planting drugs and/or weapons on criminal defendants.

             Considering the record as a whole, we are simply unable to conclude

that appellants’ claims of actual innocence were refuted upon the face of the record

and believe the circuit court erred by summarily denying appellants’ Motion to

Vacate under CR 60.02(f). Without an evidentiary hearing, appellants are

effectively denied due process of law as well as their respective liberty. Thus, we

vacate the circuit court’s September 2, 2020, orders denying these Motions to

Vacate and remand for the circuit court to conduct evidentiary hearings upon each

motion to vacate. To prevail upon their claims of actual innocence under CR

60.02(f), appellants must demonstrate that Constable Wallace and/or Constable

Baldock, in fact, planted drugs and/or weapons that resulted in appellants’ guilty

pleas to specific offenses for which they allege their innocence.

             We view any remaining contentions of error to be moot or without

merit.

             For the foregoing reasons, we vacate and remand for an evidentiary

hearing in Appeal Nos. 2020-CA-1260-MR, 2020-CA-1261-MR, and 2020-CA-

1266-MR.

                                        -16-
          ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT      BRIEFS FOR APPELLEE:
JUSTIN S. WILSON:
                          Daniel Cameron
Gregory A. Ousley         Attorney General of Kentucky
Somerset, Kentucky
                          Leilani K.M. Martin
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT      Assistant Attorney General
GINGER ARD:               Frankfort, Kentucky

Gregory A. Ousley
Somerset, Kentucky

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT
RONIKA PAYTON:

Gregory A. Ousley
Somerset, Kentucky

                        -17-