Court Opinion

ID: 9955767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 14:15:08.034152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:20.619390
License: Public Domain

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                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals

                             NO. 2022-CA-1367-MR

JASON IMHOLT                                                       APPELLANT

                 APPEAL FROM BOONE CIRCUIT COURT
v.              HONORABLE JENNIFER R. DUSING, JUDGE
                      ACTION NO. 20-D-00291-001

HALEY HOTCHKISS                                                      APPELLEE

                                   OPINION
                                  AFFIRMING

                                 ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: EASTON, JONES, AND LAMBERT, JUDGES.

LAMBERT, JUDGE: Jason Imholt appeals from the Boone Family Court’s

October 24, 2022 order sentencing him to 180 days in jail with no work release,

bond, or home incarceration due to what it determined was his contempt of a prior

Interpersonal Protection Order (“IPO”). Upon review, we affirm.
              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

             We will only set forth the facts most relevant to our disposition of this

appeal. On October 8, 2020, appellee Haley Hotchkiss filed a petition in Boone

Family Court for an IPO against Imholt, her former boyfriend, alleging that since

January of that year Imholt had subjected her to:

                • Sexual harassment
                • Harassing text messages/posts
                • Making fake profiles/using other profiles to
                  contact me
                • Stalking my work, my car, my friends
                • Threatening my family/friends/me
                • Posting/distributing explicit content of me without
                  my consent
                • He has shot at my car after/during leaving his
                  house (driveway)

             The family court held a hearing on Hotchkiss’s petition on October

19, 2020; all parties were present; and afterward, that same day, it granted

Hotchkiss’s request for an IPO against Imholt. In its order to that effect, the family

court summarized the evidence and found Hotchkiss sufficiently proved that “acts

of stalking occurred and may occur again.” It consequently prohibited Imholt, for

the next three years, from any contact or communication with Hotchkiss; from

committing further acts of abuse or threats of abuse, stalking, or sexual assault

against her; and from being within 500 feet of her or her residence. Imholt did not

seek review of the family court’s decision to enter the IPO.

                                         -2-
             Sixteen months later, on February 10, 2022, Hotchkiss filed an

affidavit with the family court detailing several violations of the IPO that Imholt

had allegedly committed since it was entered. Prompted by Hotchkiss’s affidavit,

the family court directed Imholt to show cause why he should not be held in

contempt. At the ensuing show cause hearing, held in April of that year, Imholt

admitted to violating and to being in contempt of the IPO. Pursuant to an

agreement reached with Imholt, the family court entered an order sentencing him

to 180 days of incarceration at the Boone County Jail with no work release, bond,

or home incarceration, but it suspended his sentence and directed it to be

discharged upon the condition that he commit no further violations of the IPO

through October 19, 2023. Additionally, the family court’s April 8, 2022 contempt

order required Imholt to “delete all photos of [Hotchkiss] off any device in his

possession.” Again, Imholt did not seek review of this order.

             On September 1, 2022, Hotchkiss filed another affidavit with the

family court, stating in relevant part:

             Jason Imholt was ordered not to have any further
             violations and was ordered to delete all photos of me off
             any devices in his possession. Subsequent to the entry of
             the Order, Jason Imholt posted completely inappropriate
             photos of me in direct violation of the Court’s IPO and
             the Court’s Order of April 8, 2022. Jason Imholt has also
             not ceased making fake accounts [on social media],
             harassing my friends and family and contacting me
             through these accounts.

                                          -3-
               Considering Hotchkiss’s affidavit, the family court once again

directed Imholt to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. It held a

show cause hearing on October 24, 2022. Hotchkiss was present, but Imholt –

who was undisputedly in the courthouse shortly beforehand – did not attend,1 and

his counsel represented him in his absence. Based on the evidence adduced, the

family court entered an order that day finding Imholt to be in contempt of the IPO

and the terms of his conditional discharge; and, in conformity with the prior agreed

order of April 8, 2022, it sentenced Imholt to 180 days in jail with no work release,

bond, or home incarceration. This appeal followed.

                                           ANALYSIS

               We note at the onset that Hotchkiss did not file an appellee brief. As

stated in Kentucky Rule of Appellate Procedure (“RAP”) 31(H)(3):

               If the appellee’s brief has not been filed within the time
               allowed, the court may: (a) accept the appellant’s
               statement of the facts and issues as correct; (b) reverse
               the judgment if appellant’s brief reasonably appears to
               sustain such action; or (c) regard the appellee’s failure as
               a confession of error and reverse the judgment without
               considering the merits of the case.

1
  As indicated in the family court’s order, Hotchkiss testified that upon seeing her in the hallway
outside the courtroom shortly before the October 24, 2022 hearing, Imholt “gave her the finger”
and left the building. Immediately after the hearing, in light of its disposition of this matter, the
family court issued a bench warrant for Imholt’s arrest.

                                                 -4-
See also former Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (“CR”) 76.12(8)(c).2

               However, this Court also has the discretion to not impose any of the

sanctions listed in RAP 31(H)(3). See Roberts v. Bucci, 218 S.W.3d 395, 396 (Ky.

App. 2007) (declining options in CR 76.12(8)(c)). We decline to impose any of

those sanctions here.

               Turning to the substance of this appeal, Imholt’s singular argument is

that the IPO the family court entered against him on October 19, 2020, was legally

erroneous because it was not supported by sufficient findings or substantial

evidence. He also acknowledges that he never raised this argument below but

nevertheless urges this Court to review it under the standard of Kentucky Rule of

Criminal Procedure (“RCr”) 10.26, which provides:

               A palpable error which affects the substantial rights of a
               party may be considered by the court on motion for a
               new trial or by an appellate court on appeal, even though
               insufficiently raised or preserved for review, and
               appropriate relief may be granted upon a determination
               that manifest injustice has resulted from the error.

               However, the same kind of argument – offered under roughly the

same circumstances and in the analogous context of a contested domestic violence

2
 RAP 31(H)(3) was not effective until January 1, 2023. CR 76.12(8)(c) was effective when
Imholt filed the instant appeal in November 2022, but the two rules are substantially similar.

                                               -5-
order (DVO)3 – was presented and rejected in Stinson v. Stinson, 381 S.W.3d 333

(Ky. App. 2012). We reject Imholt’s argument for the same reasons.

               To borrow from and paraphrase our rationale in Stinson, 381 S.W.3d

at 336,

               [T]his is not an issue of failing to preserve an issue in an
               otherwise proper appeal. Rather, [Imholt] failed to
               appeal from the entry of the original [IPO] in 20[20]
               when he had the opportunity to do so.

                     Our rules of procedure specifically and clearly
               provide that a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty
               days after notation of service of the judgment or order.
               CR 73.02(1)(a).[4] “Compliance with the time
               requirements of CR 73.02 is mandatory[.]” United
               Tobacco Warehouse, Inc. v. Southern States Frankfort
               Co-op., Inc., 737 S.W.2d 708, 710 (Ky. App. 1987).

               ...

                       Here, [Imholt] did not attempt to contest the
               propriety of the original [IPO] until he filed the present
               appeal in [November 2022], close to two years after the
               entry of the [IPO] in October 20[20]. Because he did not
               timely appeal from the original [IPO], [Imholt] is
               precluded from contesting the propriety of the original
               [IPO] in the present appeal. We shall decline to address
               this issue any further.

3
 See Smith v. Doe, 627 S.W.3d 903, 908 (Ky. 2021) (noting the statutes governing IPO and
DVO proceedings are interpreted similarly).
4
  CR 73.02 was operative when Imholt filed the instant appeal, but our current appellate rules
retain the requirement that a party has thirty days to file an appeal from a trial court judgment.
See RAP 3(A)(1).

                                                -6-
             The only order Imholt timely appealed from was the family court’s

October 24, 2022 order. As indicated, however, Imholt’s only strategy was to

launch an improper collateral attack against the original IPO entered in 2020.

Imholt does not challenge the merits of the family court’s October 24, 2022 order

or otherwise address it. And we have no obligation to do so on his behalf. “It is

not our function as an appellate court to research and construct a party’s legal

arguments[.]” Hadley v. Citizen Deposit Bank, 186 S.W.3d 754, 759 (Ky. App.

2005). Without any citation of supporting authority, or even argument about

alleged error in the October 24, 2022 order, any error that could have been raised

in this regard has been waived. See id. (“Our courts have established that an

alleged error may be deemed waived where an appellant fails to cite any authority

in support of the issues and arguments advanced on appeal. [W]ithout any

argument or citation of authorities, [an appellate c]ourt has little or no indication of

why the assignment represents an error.”) (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted).

             In short, Imholt’s sole appellate argument – which relates to the merits

of the family court’s October 19, 2020 IPO – is time-barred. Imholt’s present

appeal from the October 24, 2022 order fails because he has offered no argument

in opposition to that order.

                                          -7-
                              CONCLUSION

           For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM.

           ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                  NO BRIEF FOR APPELLEE.

Jennifer Wade
Frankfort, Kentucky

                                    -8-