Court Opinion

ID: 9838833
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-08 14:05:50.844955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:13.704524
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 1, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals

                             NO. 2022-CA-0982-MR

RANDY ROGERS                                                        APPELLANT

                 APPEAL FROM LOGAN CIRCUIT COURT
v.             HONORABLE JOE W. HENDRICKS, JR., JUDGE
                       ACTION NO. 21-CR-00348

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                              APPELLEE

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: COMBS, DIXON, AND ECKERLE, JUDGES.

ECKERLE, JUDGE: Appellant, Randy Rogers (Appellant) entered an

unconditional, guilty plea to multiple crimes. The Trial Court sentenced him

according to the terms of the plea agreement. He appeals as a matter of right,

raising an unpreserved allegation of double jeopardy. For the reasons announced

below, we affirm.
                                  BACKGROUND

             The facts of the case are not readily developed because Rogers waived

his constitutional right to a jury trial and entered an unconditional guilty plea.

What can be pieced together from the sparse record is a bizarre series of violent

and potentially deadly actions committed in succession on July 16, 2021. It

appears that Rogers, while intoxicated and carrying a machete, first entered a

residence and held the machete to a woman’s throat. She pushed Rogers and the

machete away, and Rogers left. Rogers returned moments later; this time he armed

himself with a smaller knife and forcibly entered the residence. He pointed the

knife at a man in the residence and asked if the man wanted to die. Rogers then

went outside and, now sporting brass knuckles, he punched a third victim multiple

times, resulting in no visible injuries. Police were dispatched. When the police

officers arrived, Rogers fled in a motor vehicle, and police pursued him until he

wrecked his car. A subsequent, breath test revealed a blood alcohol content of

0.134, well above the legal limit for motor vehicle operation.

      The Logan County Grand Jury subsequently indicted Rogers for 21 crimes:

two counts of burglary, first degree; two counts of assault, fourth degree; five

counts of wanton endangerment, first degree; one count of disorderly conduct,

second degree; one count of fleeing or evading police, first degree; four counts of

disregarding stop sign; two counts of disregarding traffic control device, traffic

                                          -2-
light; one count of reckless driving; one count of improper passing; one count of

operating motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, first offense; and one count

of being a first-degree persistent felony offender.

             Rogers subsequently accepted the Commonwealth’s offer on a plea of

guilty. Pursuant to the terms of the unconditional plea agreement, Rogers would

receive a total sentence of imprisonment for 17 years, 12 of which would be

subject to 85% parole eligibility, and five of which would be subject to 20% parole

eligibility. Pursuant to the agreement, Rogers entered guilty pleas to the following

charges: two counts of burglary, first degree; two counts of assault, fourth degree;

five counts of wanton endangerment, first degree; one count of disorderly conduct,

second degree; one count of fleeing or evading police, first degree; and one count

of operating a motor vehicle under influence of alcohol, first offense. The

remaining charges, including the first-degree persistent felony offender charge,

were dismissed by agreement.

             During sentencing, Rogers gave summary details about the crimes he

committed against the man and woman in the residence, but he gave no additional

guidance about the victim of the attack with brass knuckles. The Trial Court

accepted the guilty pleas and sentenced Rogers in accordance with the agreement.

Rogers then timely appealed the unconditional plea.

                                         -3-
                                    ANALYSIS

             Rogers raises one claim on appeal, relating solely to charges

stemming from the fight with brass knuckles. He admits his sole issue on appeal is

not preserved. He alleges that one of his assault, fourth degree charges should be

dismissed as it violates the constitutional and statutory proscriptions against double

jeopardy when combined with one of the wanton endangerment, first degree

counts. Rogers claims that convictions for both charges require inconsistent

findings of fact, as Rogers believes the facts show there was no injury to the

victim.

             The specific indictments underlying this alleged error read as follows:

                                     COUNT 6

             That on or about July 16, 2021, in Logan County,
             Kentucky, the above-named Defendant committed the
             offense of Wanton Endangerment, 1st Degree, when
             under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to
             the value of human life, he wantonly engaged in conduct
             which created a substantial danger of death or serious
             physical injury to David Taylor, while intoxicated, he
             physically assaulted Taylor while wearing brass
             knuckles.

             ....

                                     COUNT 8

             That on or about July 16, 2021, in Logan County,
             Kentucky, the above-named Defendant, committed the

                                         -4-
                offense of Assault, 4th Degree, No Visible Injury, when
                he intentionally struck David Taylor in the head.

                Rogers avers that these charges stemmed from the following

allegations in the Uniform Citation, “A third victim was allegedly struck outside of

the residence by the suspect multiple times with a set of brass knuckles which

caused no known injury to this particular victim.”

                We briefly address preservation. Rogers claims both constitutional

and statutory proscriptions against double jeopardy were violated. Provided there

was no express waiver of the constitutional proscriptions against double jeopardy

in exchange for some benefit, the constitutional claim may be raised even absent

preservation below. See Kiper v. Commonwealth, 399 S.W.3d 736, 740 (Ky.

2012), and Henry v. Commonwealth, 275 S.W.3d 194, 202 (Ky. 2008), overruled

on other grounds by Rose v. Commonwealth, 322 S.W.3d 76 (Ky. 2010). The

statutory prohibition against double jeopardy, though, can only be reviewed under

the palpable error rule of RCr1 10.26, as it was not raised below. Kiper, supra.

Under the palpable error standard “reversal is warranted if a manifest injustice has

resulted from the error, which requires a showing of the probability of a different

result or error so fundamental as to threaten a defendant’s entitlement to due

1
    Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure.

                                            -5-
process of law.” McGuire v. Commonwealth, 368 S.W.3d 100, 112 (Ky. 2012)

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

                 Regarding the constitutional claims, Rogers’ claims are meritless. It

is not double jeopardy to be convicted of fourth-degree assault and first-degree

wanton endangerment, as each offense requires proof of an element that the other

does not. Matthews v. Commonwealth, 44 S.W.3d 361, 365 (Ky. 2001) (citing

Commonwealth v. Burge, 947 S.W.2d 805, 811 (Ky. 1996)).

                 Regarding the statutory claim, Rogers argues convictions for both

charges violated the statutory proscription against double jeopardy, namely

inconsistent factual findings. This argument is made pursuant to KRS2

505.020(1)(b).3 Specifically, Rogers claims that the Commonwealth was required

to prove that no physical injury occurred with the wanton endangerment charge

and that physical injury did result from the assault charge. And, Rogers claims, the

2
    Kentucky Revised Statutes.
3
    That statute provides:

          (1) When a single course of conduct of a defendant may establish the commission
              of more than one (1) offense, he may be prosecuted for each such offense. He
              may not, however, be convicted of more than one (1) offense when:

          ...

                 (b) Inconsistent findings of fact are required to establish the
                 commission of the offenses[.]

                                                  -6-
Uniform Citation states “no known injury” occurred; thus, he assumes, no injury

occurred.

              That assumption ignores the indictment, which states “No Visible

Injury” occurred, but not that no injury at all occurred. To establish physical

injury, the Commonwealth need only prove that the victim suffered “substantial

physical pain or any impairment of physical condition[.]” KRS 500.080(13).4

This definition does not require proof of a visible injury. See, e.g., Hubbard v.

Commonwealth, 932 S.W.2d 381 (Ky. App. 1996) (pain in a hip sufficient to

establish physical injury). Being hit in the head with brass knuckles could cause a

myriad of conditions that result in substantial, physical pain or impairment of

physical condition with no visible injuries; concussions, headaches, and

impairments to vision are just three possibilities. The record here is not clear

enough to rule out any of these conclusions without additional, fact finding.

Henry, 275 S.W.3d at 202 (“[W]here, as here, the double jeopardy violation is

clear from the record without the need for additional fact finding, a guilty plea does

not preclude subsequent relief.”).

              Likewise, the record supports the claim that at least one of the

“multiple” punches could have resulted in no physical injury, thus supporting the

4
 This definition of “physical injury” was renumbered to KRS 500.080(16) subsequent to the
commission of Rogers’ crimes.

                                             -7-
wanton endangerment charge. An intoxicated person wantonly flailing a brass-

knuckle-clad fist at another person can constitute circumstances manifesting an

extreme indifference to human life and create a substantial danger of death or

serious, physical injury to the recipient of said brass-clad fist, regardless of

whether the blow results in any physical injury.

             Accordingly, the record is not clear enough without additional, factual

findings to establish a statutory double jeopardy violation. In fact, quite the

opposite is true: the indictment, when read in concert with the Uniform Citation,

supports separate and consistent findings of fact that would establish the

commission of both offenses. Moreover, Rogers waived any right to additional,

fact findings by entering an unconditional, guilty plea. Thus, we find no KRS

505.020(1)(b) double jeopardy violation that is palpable. There being no violation

of Rogers’ state and federal constitutional protections against double jeopardy, and

no palpable violation of Rogers’ statutory double jeopardy protection, we AFFIRM

the judgment and sentence.

             ALL CONCUR.

                                           -8-
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:    BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Robert C. Yang           Daniel Cameron
Frankfort, Kentucky      Attorney General of Kentucky

                         Christopher Henry
                         Assistant Attorney General
                         Frankfort, Kentucky

                        -9-