Court Opinion

ID: 9941303
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-16 15:14:29.143414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:31.291273
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: FEBRUARY 9, 2024; 10:00 A.M.
                            NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                    Commonwealth of Kentucky
                                Court of Appeals
                                   NO. 2022-CA-1022-MR

CHARLES R. STANFILL JR.                                            APPELLANT

                    APPEAL FROM CALLOWAY CIRCUIT COURT
v.                   HONORABLE JAMES T. JAMESON, JUDGE
                            ACTION NO. 10-CR-00212

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                             APPELLEE

                                          OPINION
                                         AFFIRMING

                                         ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: ACREE, COMBS, AND ECKERLE, JUDGES.

COMBS, JUDGE: Appellant, Charles R. Stanfill, Jr. (Stanfill), is serving a

twenty-year sentence for manufacturing methamphetamine, second offense. He

appeals from an Order of the Calloway Circuit Court denying his motion for relief

pursuant to CR1 60.02 and 60.03. After our review, we affirm.

1
    Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
             On March 7, 2022, Stanfill, pro se, filed a motion in Calloway Circuit

Court requesting that the court set aside, vacate, or amend the remainder of his

sentence pursuant to “CR 60.02 and/or CR 60.03, due to Violations of his 1st, 8th,

and 14th United States Constitutional Amendments and Applicable Ky. Const.

Amendments.” Stanfill explained that he had exhausted all institutional remedies

and that he now sought recourse to the circuit having jurisdiction of the matter. In

his motion, he invoked the ancient equitable remedy of audita querela, which is

defined by Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) as follows:

                          A writ available to a judgment debtor who
             seeks a rehearing of a matter on grounds of newly
             discovered evidence or newly existing legal defenses
             ....

                   “The writ of audita querela (=quarrel having been
                   heard) . . . , introduced during the time of Edward
                   III, was available to re-open a judgment in certain
                   circumstances. It was issued as a remedy to
                   defendant where an important matter concerning
                   his case had arisen since the judgment. Its issue
                   was based on equitable, rather than common law
                   principles.” L.B. Cuzron, English Legal History
                   (2nd ed. 1979).

                   “Audita querela is distinguished from coram nobis
                   in that coram nobis attacks the judgment itself,
                   whereas audita querela may be directed against the
                   enforcement, or further enforcement of a judgment
                   which when rendered was just and
                   unimpeachable.” 7A C.J.S. Audita Querela § 2, at
                   901 (1980).

                                         -2-
            His motion contained references to the two equitable remedies of

coram nobis and audita querela impliedly underlying the history of our current CR

60.02 and 60.03:

                   Movant is not attacking the issuance of this
            sentences nor any proceeding or the Trial itself, in the
            style of CORAM NOBIS.

                  Movant is however attacking the Remainder of his
            Sentence in the style of the Ancient Writ of AUDITA
            QUERELLA in so much as further execution of this
            sentence is no longer Equitable.

                  In Balsey v. Commonwealth, 428 S.W.2d 614,
            616 (KY. 1967) the Court Ruled that “The Remadies
            formerly available by way of CORAM NOBIS and
            AUDITA QUERRELA are preserved in CR 60.02(5) [5
            is now subsection (e)] . . . The technical distinction is
            that CORAM NOBIS attacks the Judgement itself;
            Whereas AUDITA QUERELLA may be Directed
            against the Enforcement . . . .”

                   Further Enforcement of Judgement in this instance
            definitely rises to the level of an “Oppressive Defect of
            Justice”, Where the Jury and the Court imposed the Bare
            Minimal Sentence allowed under the statute, and not a
            Death sentence, or possible Life Sentence of pain and ill
            health from COVID Long Haul symptoms. With the
            Pollitical Climate where the Public seems to be tired of
            statutes that Oversentence crimes that have no victim,
            Suspending further Execution of this Sentences so Mr.
            Stanfill could go enrole in a COVID Long Haul study at
            the V.A. or U.K. seems to fall in the category of RIGHT.
            The most basic function of our Courts is to Determine
            Right or Wrong.

                                        -3-
(Emphases, punctuation, and spelling original.) Stanfill also filed a motion for an

evidentiary hearing.

               By Order entered on June 6, 2022, the court denied Stanfill’s motion,

which the court addressed on the merits, noting nonetheless that his arguments and

the underlying factual circumstances “remain relatively similar to his initial

Motion for Relief.”2

               The court summarized Stanfill’s argument; i.e., that his previously

imposed sentence is no longer equitable due to the conditions in the facility where

he is housed and that due to his incarceration, he is at increased risk of serious

illness and death as well as complications due to underlying medical conditions.

The court further acknowledged that Stanfill sought relief “in the style” of audita

querela and accordingly accepted his motion pursuant to CR 60.02(e).3

               The court found that Stanfill’s motion pursuant to CR 60.02(e) fell far

below the standard set forth in Barnett v. Commonwealth, 979 S.W.2d 98, 101 (Ky.

1998), that “to be eligible for CR 60.02 relief, the movant must demonstrate why

he is entitled to this special, extraordinary relief.” Additionally, the court found

2
 This Court affirmed the denial of Stanfill’s June 4, 2020, motion in Stanfill v. Commonwealth,
No. 2020-CA-0904-MR, 2022 WL 67407, at *1 (Ky. App. Jan. 7, 2022).

3
   In relevant part, CR 60.02(e) provides that: “[o]n motion a court may, upon such terms as are
just, relieve a party . . . from its final judgment, order, or proceeding upon the following grounds:
. . . it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application[.]”

                                                -4-
that Stanfill was not entitled to relief under CR 60.02(f),4 citing Gribbins v.

Commonwealth, No. 2020-CA-0635-MR, 2021 WL 1164461 (Ky. App. Mar. 26,

2021). Gribbins held that CR 60.02(f) functions to address significant defects in

trial proceedings; thus, the results of incarceration with the risk of contracting

COVID-19 are not proper considerations or subject matter for CR 60.02(f) relief.

              Next, the court determined that because Stanfill’s argument failed

under CR 60.02(f), his claim under CR 60.03 would also fail. CR 60.03 provides in

relevant part as follows:

               Rule 60.02 shall not limit the power of any court to
               entertain an independent action to relieve a person from a
               judgment, order or proceeding on appropriate equitable
               grounds. Relief shall not be granted in an independent
               action if the ground of relief sought has been denied in a
               proceeding by motion under Rule 60.02 . . . .

               The court was unpersuaded by Stanfill’s allegations of various

constitutional violations due to his incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court explained that even if Stanfill had presented sufficient evidence to

establish a violation of his constitutional rights, his motion would still fail because

the sentencing court is not the proper forum for relief. Williams v. Commonwealth,

No. 2019-CA-0964-MR, 2021 WL 943753 (Ky. App. Mar. 12, 2021).

4
  CR 60.02(f) permits a court to relieve a party from its final judgment, order, or proceeding for
“any other reason of an extraordinary nature justifying relief.”

                                                -5-
             In his appeal, Stanfill argues: (1) that the trial court erred in stating

that it was not the correct forum in which to raise defendant’s claim; (2) that the

court erred in not holding an evidentiary hearing; and (3) that the court

intentionally used coram nobis and CR 60.02(f) to muddy the waters of its order

pertaining to his motion. We address these arguments together.

                     The burden of proof in a CR 60.02 proceeding falls
             squarely on the movant to affirmatively allege facts
             which, if true, justify vacating the judgment and further
             allege special circumstances that justify CR 60.02
             relief. . . . We review the denial of a CR 60.02 motion
             under an abuse of discretion standard. The test for abuse
             of discretion is whether the trial judge’s decision was
             arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound
             legal principles.

Foley v. Commonwealth, 425 S.W.3d 880, 885–86 (Ky. 2014)(cleaned up):

             We find no abuse of discretion. In Martin v. Commonwealth, 639

S.W.3d 433 (Ky. App. 2022), another panel of this Court addressed essentially the

same issues as those in the case now before us and held as follows:

             CR 60.02 specifically functions to address significant
             defects in the trial proceedings. …

             Physical ailments of a defendant are not tantamount to
             trial defects and thus do not warrant CR 60.02 relief.

             ...

             So, because [defendant’s] argument on the same core
             grounds fails to satisfy CR 60.02(f), [he] is not entitled to
             relief under CR 60.03. . . .

                                          -6-
             [Defendant] has not shown he is entitled to relief
             pursuant to the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments. . . .
             [W]e have rejected similar COVID-19-based claims and
             do so here again, for the same fundamental reasons.
             Gribbins, 2021 WL 1164461, at *2-3 (holding that the
             Kentucky Department of Corrections was not indifferent
             to the health needs of prisoners); Williams, 2021 WL
             943753, at *3 (holding that Eighth Amendment claims
             involve the conditions of the movant's confinement and
             thus are civil claims which are not properly brought
             in the sentencing court); Morris, 2021 WL 1933656, at
             *2 (holding that Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment
             conditions of confinement claims must be raised in civil
             actions by naming the warden of the movant’s
             institution as a named party and, in any event, success
             on those claims would not result in the claimant being
             released from incarceration).

Id. at 435-37 (Ky. App. 2022) (cleaned up) (emphases added).

             We agree with the Commonwealth that there was no basis to conduct

an evidentiary hearing in this case. Gross v. Commonwealth, 648 S.W.2d 853, 856

(Ky. 1983) (“Before the movant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing, he must

affirmatively allege facts which, if true, justify vacating the judgment and further

allege special circumstances that justify CR 60.02 relief.”). Stanfill failed to allege

an adequate basis for meriting CR 60.02 relief.

             Therefore, we affirm the June 6, 2022, Order of the Calloway Circuit

Court.

             ALL CONCUR.

                                          -7-
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:              BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Charles R. Stanfill Jr., pro se    Daniel Cameron
Burgin, Kentucky                   Attorney General of Kentucky

                                   Matthew R. Krygiel
                                   Assistant Attorney General
                                   Frankfort, Kentucky

                                  -8-