Court Opinion

ID: 9957782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-05 14:07:40.016794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:39.153826
License: Public Domain

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                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals
                             NO. 2022-CA-0943-MR

WILLIAM E. MASON                                                    APPELLANT

                APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
v.                HONORABLE MARY M. SHAW, JUDGE
                       ACTION NO. 16-CR-001814

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                              APPELLEE

                                   OPINION
                                  AFFIRMING

                                 ** ** ** ** **

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

TAYLOR, JUDGE: William E. Mason brings this appeal from a July 14, 2022,

Opinion and Order of the Jefferson Circuit Court, Division Five, denying his

Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42 motion without an evidentiary

hearing. We affirm.

            Following a jury trial, Mason was adjudicated guilty of two counts of

murder, possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, tampering with physical
evidence, and with being a first-degree persistent felony offender. Mason was

sentenced to life imprisonment. Mason pursued a direct appeal to the Kentucky

Supreme Court, and by Opinion rendered November 1, 2018, the Supreme Court

affirmed Mason’s conviction (Mason v. Commonwealth, 559 S.W.3d 337 (Ky.

2018)).

            The Supreme Court summarized the underlying facts as follows:

                   Investigators found the lifeless bodies of three
            men, Larry Thomas, John Bailey, and Michael Bass, at
            the residence of Everett Todd. The bodies of Thomas
            and Bailey were found in Todd’s living room, and Bass’s
            body was found in the bedroom. All three men had been
            shot in the head, and their bodies had been rolled in
            pieces of carpet cut from the floor. Todd first informed
            law enforcement thirteen hours after the men had died.
            Todd told the police that he knew nothing about the
            killings because he had spent the night at a friend’s
            house, discovering the bodies upon returning home in the
            morning. Authorities questioned three individuals, Todd,
            Christopher Giddens, and Mason, as part of the
            investigation of these apparent crimes.

                   During questioning, Todd retracted his earlier
            denial and revealed that, in fact, he knew about the
            murders occurring in his home. Todd stated that Mason
            murdered the three men and Giddens helped, reluctantly,
            by cutting the carpet to wrap the bodies. Specifically,
            Todd stated that he arrived home at about 3 a.m. the day
            of the murders to pick up some clothes for an overnight
            stay with his girlfriend when he encountered Mason
            relaxing in the kitchen and living room with Bailey and
            Thomas. A moment later, Giddens came through the
            back door, and, at almost that very instant, Todd heard “a
            shot discharge” and saw Mason shooting Bailey in the
            head. Mason then killed Thomas and asked where Bass

                                       -2-
             was. Mason then went into the bedroom, after which
             Todd heard a gunshot and the sound of Bass falling to the
             floor. Todd spent a few moments inside the house,
             mopping up some blood and cutting a strip of carpet.
             Todd, Giddens, and Mason then went to Giddens’s
             mother’s house to discuss what to do next. Todd
             eventually left for his girlfriend’s house, where he spent a
             few hours sitting in his car. He then returned to his own
             home, looked briefly inside, and left again to go to his
             cousin’s house. He slept there for a few hours before
             calling police.

                    Giddens also stated that Mason killed the three
             men and admitted to assisting in the manipulation of the
             crime scene after the shootings. Specifically, Giddens
             stated that he arrived at Todd’s house to find Mason,
             Bailey, and Thomas conversing. Moments after arriving
             at the house, Mason shot Bailey and Thomas. Giddens,
             Todd, and Mason then left the house and went to
             Giddens’s mother’s home, where they sat for a few
             minutes on the front porch before deciding to return to
             Todd’s house to “fix” the scene. Giddens stated that it
             was during this return trip that he first saw Bass’s body,
             finding it on the floor of a nearby bedroom. Giddens
             took a box cutter and cut some carpet from the floor,
             giving up after a few minutes and leaving the house.

                   After two weeks of trial and more than eleven
             hours of deliberation, the jury convicted Mason of the
             murder of Thomas and Bailey but not Bass. . . .

Mason, 559 S.W.3d at 338-39. The Supreme Court found no reversible error and

affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

             On January 30, 2020, Mason filed a motion for post-conviction relief

pursuant to RCr 11.42 in the circuit court. Therein, Mason asserted that trial

counsel rendered ineffective assistance in several instances. The trial court denied

                                            -3-
Mason’s RCr 11.42 motion without an evidentiary hearing by order entered July

14, 2022. This appeal follows.

             When reviewing the denial of an RCr 11.42 motion without an

evidentiary hearing, we must determine whether movant’s allegations are refuted

upon the face of the record. Fraser v. Commonwealth, 59 S.W.3d 448, 452 (Ky.

2001). An evidentiary hearing is not required where the record refutes the claim of

error, or “where the allegations, even if true, would not be sufficient to invalidate

the conviction.” Harper v. Commonwealth, 978 S.W.2d 311, 314 (Ky. 1998).

             In Kentucky, ineffective assistance of counsel claims are reviewed

under the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)

and recognized by the Kentucky Supreme Court as controlling precedent in Gall v.

Commonwealth, 702 S.W.2d 37 (Ky. 1985). To prevail upon an RCr 11.42

motion, a movant must demonstrate: (1) trial counsel’s performance was deficient,

and (2) the deficiency was prejudicial and deprived defendant of a fair

trial. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. And, an appellant bears a heavy burden of

identifying the specific acts or omissions that constitute counsel’s deficient

performance. Commonwealth v. Pelfrey, 998 S.W.2d 460, 463 (Ky. 1999).

             Mason contends that the trial court committed reversible error by

denying his RCr 11.42 motion to vacate his sentence of imprisonment without an

evidentiary hearing. For his first argument, Mason contends trial counsel rendered

                                          -4-
ineffective assistance by opening the door to evidence that Everett Todd had taken

a polygraph test and was not thereafter charged with a crime. In support of his

argument, Mason asserts it was improper for trial counsel to question Todd about

the polygraph test and to allow Todd “to insinuate to the jury that her [sic]

performed favorably on the examination.” Mason’s Brief at 14.

             In rebuttal to trial counsel’s examination of Todd, the trial court

permitted the Commonwealth to call the polygraph examiner as a witness. The

polygraph examiner essentially testified that the test was inconclusive because

Todd fell asleep during the test. On direct appeal, the Supreme Court held that it

was proper to allow the Commonwealth to rebut the testimony after the door had

been opened by Mason’s counsel. But, more importantly, the Supreme Court

noted that it failed to see how the testimony of the polygraph examiner prejudiced

Mason in any way. We agree and conclude that Mason has failed to demonstrate

that he was prejudiced by counsel opening the door to permit the Commonwealth

to call the polygraph examiner as a witness. As the polygraph examiner ultimately

testified that the test was inconclusive because Todd fell asleep, we do not believe

Mason was prejudiced. The second prong of Strickland, which requires that any

deficiency must have been prejudicial, was not satisfied; thus, the trial court

properly denied Mason’s RCr 11.42 motion as to the polygraph issue. See

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687.

                                         -5-
             Mason asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to prepare

for trial. More particularly, Mason complains that trial counsel failed to timely

obtain before trial, the police interview of Todd, as well as, the police interviews of

three other witnesses, and certain photographs.

             During discovery, the Commonwealth supplied trial counsel with four

discs containing the police interview of Todd. Trial counsel was unable to view

one of the four discs as the disc was corrupt. On the first day of trial, the trial court

addressed some housekeeping matters before empaneling the jury. Trial counsel

advised the court that he had been unable to view one of the discs containing part

of Todd’s police interview. Trial counsel requested and was granted a continuance

to review the one disc that he had been unable to view. After the continuance, trial

counsel cross-examined Todd for almost an hour regarding details of the police

interview and even asserted a theory wherein Todd was the perpetrator of the

murders. It is also worth noting that Todd was not the only witness to the murders.

Mason’s cousin, Christopher Giddens, also witnessed the murders. During

Giddens’ police interview, which was played at trial, Giddens stated that Mason

committed the murders. Considering the evidence as a whole, we do not believe

that Mason has demonstrated that he was prejudiced by the delay in trial counsel

receiving and reviewing the one previously corrupt disc of Todd’s police

                                           -6-
interview. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687.1 Thus, the trial court did not err in

denying Mason’s RCr 11.42 request for relief.

               For his third argument, Mason next asserts that trial counsel failed to

present Mason’s alibi defense at trial. Mason specifically contends that “William

Mason, Brittney Calloway, Mr. Todd’s girlfriend, and various neighbors” could

have testified that Mason was not home when the gunshots were fired. Mason’s

Brief at 18.

               It must be recognized that Mason failed to identify Todd’s girlfriend

and the neighbors by name. Furthermore, Mason did not provide any specific facts

regarding how any of these witnesses could have provided him an alibi. Most

notably, Mason failed to specify the testimony of these individuals concerning his

alleged alibi. Therefore, we believe Mason did not meet the burden of identifying

the specific acts or omissions that constitute counsel’s deficient performance. See

Pelfrey, 998 S.W.2d at 463. Thus, the trial court properly determined trial counsel

was not deficient as to Mason’s alibi claim.

               Finally, Mason contends that trial counsel was deficient for failing to

request that the jury be sequestered during the trial. More particularly, Mason

asserts that after a day of deliberations, the jurors had decided to acquit Mason of

1
 As we concluded there was no error as to the police interview of Everett Todd, there can be no
cumulative error as to the police interview of the other three witnesses or the photographs.

                                              -7-
the Bass murder and were considering acquitting Mason of the murders of Thomas

and Bailey. Mason asserts that if the jury had been sequestered “the trial would

have resulted in a hung jury or an acquittal of [Mason] on all counts.” Mason’s

Brief at 20. However, Mason has failed to present any proof that the jury was

heavily in favor of acquitting him of the murders of Thomas and Bailey during

their deliberations.

             The record does reveal that during deliberations, the jury informed the

court they could not reach a unanimous verdict. The court then read the Allen

charge and sent the jurors back to further deliberate. See Allen v. United States,

164 U.S. 492, 501 (1896). During a bench conference, Mason’s trial counsel

requested that the jury be allowed to deliberate for thirty more minutes and then

conclude for the day. After thirty minutes, the trial court dismissed the jury to

return the next morning. Upon the jury’s return the following morning, the jury

requested the videos of the police interviews of Todd, the police interview of

Giddens, and the cross-examination of Todd by Mason’s trial counsel. A few

hours after receiving those items, the jury reached a verdict. The jury convicted

Mason of the murder of Thomas and Bailey but acquitted him of the murder of

Bass. The jury reached this verdict after reviewing several items of evidence. As

Mason’s claim that he would have been acquitted if the jury had been sequestered

                                         -8-
is merely speculative, we believe Mason has failed to meet his burden of proving

this claim. See Bartley v. Commonwealth, 400 S.W.3d 714, 719 (Ky. 2013).

             We view any remaining contentions of error to be moot or without

merit. In sum, we believe the trial court did not err by denying Mason’s RCr 11.42

motions without an evidentiary hearing.

             For the foregoing reasons, the Opinion and Order of the Jefferson

Circuit Court is affirmed.

             ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                      BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Michael L. Goodwin                         Daniel Cameron
Louisville, Kentucky                       Attorney General of Kentucky
                                           Frankfort, Kentucky

                                           Melissa A. Pile
                                           Assistant Attorney General
                                           Frankfort, Kentucky

                                          -9-