Court Opinion

ID: 9955765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 14:15:06.790715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:20.639226
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: MARCH 22, 2024; 10:00 A.M.
                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                           Court of Appeals
                              NO. 2023-CA-1205-MR

JOSEPH EVENER                                                         APPELLANT

                APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT
v.              HONORABLE THOMAS D. WINGATE, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 23-CI-00347

CRAIG HUGHES, WARDEN;
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY;
AND VICTIMS COMPENSATION
BOARD                                                                  APPELLEES

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: COMBS, LAMBERT, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

COMBS, JUDGE: Joseph Evener, pro se, appeals the order of the Franklin Circuit

Court dismissing his petition for declaration of rights. After our review, we affirm.

             Following a crime spree in January 2020, Evener was indicted in

Clinton Circuit Court on several charges. Based on Evener’s plea of guilty, the

circuit court entered judgment on August 12, 2021. The court found that the
victim of Evener’s crimes sustained serious physical injury during a robbery, and

Evener was sentenced to serve twenty-years’ imprisonment.

                The victim’s sister, acting as her legal representative, filed a claim

with the Public Protection Cabinet’s Crime Victims Compensation Board (the

Board). The Board was created to indemnify needy victims of criminal acts who

might otherwise incur financial hardship and become dependent on public aid.

KRS1 49.270. The Board has the authority to pay claims for certain expenses

incurred because the victim sustained injury. KRS 49.370(3). Any award made to

the victim must be reduced by the amount that the victim received from insurance,

public funds, or any recovery from (or on behalf of) the person who committed the

crime. KRS 49.390(1). Payment of benefits to a victim by the Board “creates a

debt due and owing to the state by any person found to have committed such

criminal act in either a civil or criminal court proceeding in which he is a party.”

KRS 49.470(1).

                As part of its investigation, the Board learned that Evener’s eighty-

three-year-old victim sustained numerous injuries to her face and body as a result

of closed-fist punches. Her injuries included a broken jaw and a broken femur.

The victim required a blood transfusion and more than three months of

1
    Kentucky Revised Statutes.

                                            -2-
rehabilitation. In an order issued by the Board’s chairman, she was awarded

$7,409.80.

             In correspondence dated September 19, 2022, the Board notified

Evener that he owed a debt to the Commonwealth in the amount awarded to his

victim. The Board specifically advised him that the debt was separate and apart

from any restitution that he had been ordered to pay by the circuit court. Evener

was informed that he had a right to protest. He was provided specific information

concerning the method by which he could do so and the relevant deadlines. The

Board warned Evener that if he failed either to protest the debt or to pay it, the

Public Protection Cabinet’s Office of Claims and Appeals would take legal action

to intercept his wages. The record does not contain a court order or judgment

permitting the Board to collect on this debt. Attached was a form payment

agreement pursuant to which Evener could agree to pay $10 per month to the

Board until the debt was paid. Evener did not respond.

             Eventually, the Office of Claims and Appeals filed a Notice of

Intercept with Southeast State Correctional Complex, where Evener was

incarcerated. The provisions of KRS 44.030(1) prohibit the state from paying

money to any person who is indebted to the state. Therefore, the prison began

deducting sums from Evener’s state pay (consistent with provisions of Correction

Policies and Procedures) and forwarding those amounts to the Board.

                                          -3-
             On April 20, 2023, Evener tendered to the Franklin Circuit Court a

petition for declaration of rights. “Hon Craig Hughes, warden Commonwealth of

Kentucky” was the only named respondent. Evener’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis was granted, and he forwarded a $10.00 filing fee to Franklin Circuit

Court. In the body of his complaint, Evener sought an order directing the

Department of Corrections to cease deducting funds from his prison account and to

reimburse him for sums already subtracted.

             Two civil summonses issued. The first summons named “Natalie

Life” of the Office of Claims and Appeals as defendant. John Atha (a postal

technician at the Kentucky Finance and Administration Cabinet) signed for the

mail upon its delivery on May 25, 2023. The return receipt did not indicate that

service was made by certified mail, restricted delivery, or registered mail. The

second summons was to be served by certified mail on Craig Hughes, the Warden

at Southeastern State Correctional Complex.

             On June 14, 2023, Natalie Lile (a staff attorney employed by the

Office of Claims and Appeals) and the Office of Claims and Appeals made special

appearances and filed a motion to dismiss. Counsel observed that neither Lile nor

the Office of Claims and Appeals was named in the caption of Evener’s petition

for declaration of rights and that no specific allegations were made against Lile.

Moreover, the petition included only “passing reference to the Crime Victims

                                         -4-
Compensation Board, one of the three boards housed within [the Office of Claims

and Appeals].” Finally, counsel noted that Evener’s demand for relief was directed

only at the Department of Corrections. Based on these factors, counsel challenged

the sufficiency of service of process and the court’s jurisdiction over Lile and the

Office of Claims and Appeals.

             On August 21, 2023, Evener filed a motion “to amend and supplement

the tendered pleadings” in which he explained that he wanted appellate review of

the Board’s decision. He contended that his legal aide’s failure to understand the

proper procedure to do so resulted in the denial of his right to appeal in violation of

both state and federal constitutional provisions. Evener asked the court to dismiss

the Department of Corrections as respondent and to restyle the action as an appeal

from the Board’s decision.

             On August 28, 2023, Hughes filed a motion to dismiss. Hughes

argued that Southeastern State Correctional Complex properly intercepted state

funds paid to Evener. By order entered September 11, 2023, the circuit court

ordered the petition dismissed. This appeal followed.

             On appeal, Evener argues that the Franklin Circuit Court erred by

dismissing the petition because the Board’s action deprived him of due process,

violated principles related to the separation-of-powers doctrine, and breached his

plea agreement by requiring that he pay restitution. Because no action was

                                          -5-
properly commenced against the Board, we agree that the circuit court lacked the

necessary jurisdiction. Consequently, it did not err by dismissing the action.

                Jurisdictional issues are questions of law and thus are reviewed de

novo. Appalachian Reg’l Healthcare, Inc. v. Coleman, 239 S.W.3d 49 (Ky. 2007).

A civil action is commenced by the filing of a complaint with the court and the

issuance of a summons in good faith. CR2 3.01. Our rules of civil procedure

require that service upon the Commonwealth or any state agency be made by

serving the Attorney General or an Assistant Attorney General. CR 4.04. It is

undisputed that no summons issued in the name of the Attorney General or any

Assistant Attorney General in this case, nor was a copy of the petition for

declaratory relief served upon him or any of his assistants. Evener never made an

attempt to have such a summons issue, and he presents no argument to excuse his

failure to do so. A civil action was never commenced against the Board.

                Therefore, we affirm the order of the Franklin Circuit Court.

                ALL CONCUR.

2
    Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.

                                           -6-
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:     BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
                         CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION
Joseph Evener, pro se    BOARD:
Wheelwright, Kentucky
                         Shelby Bevins-Sullivan
                         Frankfort, Kentucky

                         BRIEF FOR APPELLEE CRAIG
                         HUGHES:

                         Mark F. Bizzell
                         Frankfort, Kentucky

                        -7-