Court Opinion

ID: 9957792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-05 14:07:47.739057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:39.758021
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: MARCH 29, 2024; 10:00 A.M.
                         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                 Commonwealth of Kentucky
                            Court of Appeals
                               NO. 2022-CA-1317-MR

JOHN BOULDER, IV                                                         APPELLANT

                  APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
v.                HONORABLE THOMAS L. TRAVIS, JUDGE
                       ACTION NO. 20-CR-00257-002

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                                   APPELLEE

                                      OPINION
                                     AFFIRMING

                                    ** ** ** ** **

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

TAYLOR, JUDGE: John Boulder, IV, brings this appeal from an August 9, 2022,

Order of the Fayette Circuit Court denying his Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea.

We affirm.

             Boulder was indicted by a Fayette County Grand Jury upon two

counts of facilitation to murder and one count each of tampering with physical

evidence, facilitation to first-degree criminal mischief, facilitation to first-degree

wanton endangerment, and facilitation to first-degree assault. The indictment
stemmed from an incident that resulted in multiple gunshots being fired from one

vehicle into another vehicle. Two of the three occupants died as a result of their

injuries; the third occupant was shot as he fled the vehicle but survived. A

subsequent investigation indicated that the shootings occurred as retaliation

between rival gangs and that Boulder was driving the vehicle from which the shots

were fired.

              Boulder’s case and the cases of his co-defendants were subsequently

referred to mediation. The mediation resulted in Boulder and his co-defendants

agreeing to enter guilty pleas. The plea agreements were contingent upon all of the

defendants accepting the plea offers made by the Commonwealth. Pursuant to the

plea agreement, Boulder ultimately pleaded guilty to two counts of facilitation to

commit murder. In exchange, the remaining charges against Boulder would be

dismissed, and he would be sentenced to seven-years’ imprisonment. As part of

the plea agreement, the Commonwealth also agreed to dismiss a separate

indictment (Action No. 20-CR-00211) wherein Boulder had been charged with

first-degree strangulation. Boulder’s guilty plea was entered on March 31, 2022,

and sentencing was set for June 15, 2022.

              On June 3, 2022, Boulder filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

In support of his motion, Boulder asserted that: (1) the Commonwealth did not

turn over cell phone information (Cellebrite report) that would have shown he was

                                         -2-
not present at the scene of the shootings; (2) additional discovery was provided

after his guilty plea which demonstrated further inconsistencies in the testimony of

the Commonwealth’s witness, E.T.; and (3) he was not informed of the

implications the guilty plea would have on his other pending charges, particularly

the charge of engaging in organized crime (Action No. 21-CR-00494-006).

Following a hearing, the circuit court denied Boulder’s motion to withdraw his

guilty plea. This appeal follows.

             Boulder asserts that the circuit court erred by denying his motion to

withdraw his guilty plea. More particularly, Boulder asserts that his guilty plea

was not entered intelligently and voluntarily.

             Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 8.10 governs the

withdrawal of guilty plea in Kentucky and provides that a court may permit a

defendant to withdraw a guilty plea before final judgment. If the guilty plea was

entered involuntarily, the court must grant the motion to withdraw. Rodriguez v.

Commonwealth, 87 S.W.3d 8, 10 (Ky. 2002) (citations omitted); Rigdon v.

Commonwealth, 144 S.W.3d 283, 288 (Ky. App. 2004). Conversely, if the guilty

plea was entered voluntarily, the circuit court may utilize its discretion to grant or

deny the motion. Id. A plea is considered valid if it “represents a voluntary and

intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.”

Sturgill v. Commonwealth, 533 S.W.3d 204, 208 (Ky. App. 2017) (citing Sparks v.

                                          -3-
Commonwealth, 721 S.W.2d 726, 727 (Ky. App. 1986)). Additionally, we review

the trial court’s findings of voluntariness under the clearly erroneous standard.

Rigdon, 144 S.W.3d at 288.

             In its August 9, 2022, Order denying Boulder’s motion to withdraw

his guilty plea, the circuit court found that Boulder’s guilty plea was entered

knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The circuit court specifically reasoned:

             Boulder knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily, and
             willingly entered his plea of guilty. During negotiations
             with the Commonwealth, Boulder was provided an
             adequate explanation of the terms of the plea agreement.
             Further, Boulder affirmed that he was entering his plea
             voluntarily and intelligently and that he had no
             complaints regarding his attorney’s representation of
             him. At no point during the entry of his plea did Boulder
             express any concerns about the implications of the plea
             on his other cases or his inability to review a Cellebrite
             report of his own phone prior to the plea.

                    The Defendant’s cell phone was seized and still
             held by police. As the Court understands it, he
             complains now of not having a Cellebrite report from his
             own phone that might possibly show by cell tower
             location he was not in proximity of the shooting.
             Because that phone is “locked,” the police cannot readily
             access the phone, have not been able to do so to date, and
             it’s unknown if and when they might be able to do so
             unless the Defendant provides the access code. That
             information has been known to the Defendant and his
             counsel during the pendency of this action. The
             Defendant has not provided that access code. It may be
             possible some data from a Cellebrite report could shed
             some light on the location of that phone at the time of the
             shooting. However, [c]ell phone tower data can be
             otherwise obtained by subpoena to the cell phone

                                         -4-
             provider. There has been ample opportunity to obtain
             that evidence.

                    On the subject of witness E.T.’s redacted
             statements, those written transcripts were made available
             to the Defendant and his trial counsel prior to the plea.
             Nothing therein appears to have a material bearing on the
             Defendant’s plea. At any given point during the
             pendency of a criminal case, is every possible fact known
             or knowable[?] This Defendant was sufficiently apprised
             of information to intelligently and voluntarily enter a
             plea, or had the opportunity to not [do] so, which he
             waived. The Court also finds that there is a lack of
             evidence as to the assertion the Defendant was not
             adequately apprised as to the effect his plea may have on
             other pending criminal charges.

August 9, 2022, Order at 4-5.

             The circuit court determined that Boulder’s plea was intelligently and

voluntarily made. And, based upon our review of the record and the analysis

outlined above in the circuit court’s Order, we cannot conclude that the circuit

court’s finding that the plea agreement was entered intelligently and voluntarily

was clearly erroneous. There was more than substantial evidence of a probative

value to support this finding by the circuit court. Additionally, the circuit court did

not abuse its discretion by denying Boulder’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

The court’s decision was cogently reasoned, supported by facts, and supported by

sound legal authority. Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court did not commit

error by denying Boulder’s motion to withdraw guilty plea.

                                          -5-
            For the foregoing reasons, the Order of the Fayette Circuit Court is

affirmed.

            ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                    BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Roy Alyette Durham, II                   Daniel Cameron
Frankfort, Kentucky                      Attorney General of Kentucky
                                         Frankfort, Kentucky

                                         Stephanie L. McKeehan
                                         Assistant Attorney General
                                         Frankfort, Kentucky

                                       -6-