Court Opinion

ID: 9381600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-23 15:05:44.844552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:33.474686
License: Public Domain

IMPORTANT NOTICE
        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION

THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED “NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.”
PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C),
THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE
CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER
CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER,
UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS,
RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR
CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED
OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE
BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION
BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED
DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE
ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE
DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE
ACTION.
                                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Supreme Court of Kentucky
                                 2021-SC-0509-MR

ROY LUKE SUTHERLAND, JR.                                                 APPELLANT

                ON APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
V.               HONORABLE A. C. MCKAY CHAUVIN, JUDGE
                            NO. 79-CR-001351

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                                  APPELLEE

                              OPINION AND ORDER

      Roy Luke Sutherland, Jr., appeals from an amended judgment

resentencing him in accordance with the Court of Appeals’ instruction.

Because the appeal is not properly before this Court, it is dismissed.

                 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

             In late 1979, Sutherland was indicted by a Jefferson County
      grand jury on charges of murder and first-degree rape. He
      eventually entered an “open plea” of guilty to the charges with the
      understanding that the plea agreement sparing him the death
      penalty was not binding on the court. On November 30, 1981, the
      trial court sentenced Sutherland to life in prison for murder and 40
      years in prison for first-degree rape. The court ordered the
      sentences to run consecutively.1

           In the years that followed, Sutherland filed a number of
      unsuccessful CR 60.02 motions. Another such motion was filed on
      October 4, 2017. Sutherland argued in that motion that his 1981

      1   Sutherland v. Commonwealth, 2019-CA-000752-MR, 2020 WL 598305, at *1
(Ky. App. Feb. 7, 2020). We adopt a portion of the Court of Appeals’ concise statement
of facts.
      sentence was illegal since a sentence to a term of years cannot run
      consecutive to a life sentence. The court denied the motion [and
      Sutherland appealed to the Court of Appeals]. [The Court of
      Appeals] remanded the case to the trial court[2] for consideration of
      Sutherland’s CR 60.02 motion under [recently decided] Phon v.
      Commonwealth, 545 S.W.3d 284 (Ky. 2018).3

      On remand, the trial court again denied Sutherland’s motion.

Sutherland’s pro se appeal followed. The Court of Appeals determined that

Sutherland’s sentence was illegal and remanded the case to the trial court for

resentencing. The trial court was directed to enter an amended sentence of life

in prison on the murder charge and 40 years in prison on the rape charge, to

run concurrently.4

      The Court of Appeals also considered Sutherland’s illegal plea agreement

argument. Sutherland argued, relying on United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S.

570 (1968), that the plea agreement itself was void ab initio and illegal because

he was still subject to the death penalty when he entered his guilty pleas. The

Court of Appeals concluded that the facts in Jackson were distinguishable from

Sutherland’s case; here, Sutherland was not coerced or enticed to enter a guilty

plea to avoid the death penalty. The Court of Appeals emphasized the fact that

Sutherland entered an “open plea” and could have received the death penalty.

      2Sutherland v. Commonwealth, No. 2017-CA-001885, 2019 WL 258126 (Ky.
App. Jan. 18, 2019) (unpublished).
      3   Sutherland, 2020 WL 598305, at *1.
      4   Id. at *1-2.

                                          2
The Court of Appeals also rejected Sutherland’s argument that the illegal

sentence he received in 1981 voids his conviction of the offenses.5

      On remand, the circuit court entered the amended judgment as directed

by the Court of Appeals in Sutherland v. Commonwealth, 2019-CA-000752-MR,

2020 WL 598305 (Ky. App. Feb. 7, 2020). Sutherland now appeals to this

Court from the amended judgment entered March 30, 2021.

                                       ANALYSIS

      Sutherland complains that the trial court abused its discretion by

refusing to void ab initio both the contractual plea agreement based upon the

illegal sentence and the resulting judgment of conviction. Citing McClanahan

v. Commonwealth,6 Sutherland argues that because his plea agreement

involved an illegal sentence, the whole agreement is void. Citing Jackson,

Sutherland argues that because he negotiated the plea agreement while the

death penalty was still a possible punishment in his case, the plea agreement

and conviction are void.

      The Commonwealth responds that Sutherland is appealing from the

amended judgment, thus proceeding as if he were prosecuting his direct appeal

of right following his convictions 30-plus years ago, and that the remand by the

Court of Appeals for a sentence correction did not invest any right of appeal to

this Court on his underlying convictions. The Commonwealth also asserts that

because Sutherland is bringing the same claims of error decided and rejected

      5   Id. at *2-3.
      6   308 S.W.3d 694 (Ky. 2010).

                                          3
on their merits by the now final Court of Appeals’ opinion, the two claims are

barred by the law of the case doctrine.

      In reply, Sutherland asserts that he is afforded the right to appeal

to this Court by Section 110(2)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution. He cites

Pattison v. Henson, 240 S.W.2d 619 (Ky. 1951), in support of the

argument that the constitutional right to appeal applies equally to an

amended judgment. However, Pattison is inapposite here. Pattison is a

civil case addressing whether the circuit court had lost jurisdiction to

amend an erroneous judgment.

      Williamson v. Commonwealth7 is an on-point criminal case, explaining

the procedure to be followed when an appellate court issues a decision only

partially in favor of the litigant and the litigant wishes to challenge the

unfavorable decision. In Williamson, like here, the Court of Appeals granted

partial relief to the appellant and it wasn’t until after the trial court

implemented the Court of Appeals’ order that the appellant sought relief from

the Kentucky Supreme Court.8 Before addressing the merits of the appeal, the

Court considered whether the law of the case doctrine precluded consideration

of the appellant’s claim.9

      The Court explained the appellate procedure which likewise applies

in this case:

      7   767 S.W.2d 323 (Ky. 1989).
      8   Id. at 324-25.
      9   Id.

                                          4
            It is fundamental that when an issue is finally determined by
      an appellate court, the trial court must comply with such
      determination. The court to which the case is remanded is without
      power to entertain objections or make modifications in the
      appellate court decision. City of Lexington v. Garner, Ky., 329
      S.W.2d 54 (1959) and E’town Shopping Center, Inc., v. Holbert, Ky.,
      452 S.W.2d 396 (1970).

             It necessarily follows, therefore, that if a party is aggrieved by
      an adverse appellate determination, his remedy is in an appellate
      court at the time the adverse decision is rendered. This is so
      because an objection in the trial court is futile and an appeal from
      the trial court’s implementation of the appellate determination is
      nothing more than an attempt to relitigate an issue previously
      decided.

                ....

             For litigation to proceed in an orderly manner and finally
      settle the rights of the parties, it is necessary for parties to timely
      assert the rights they claim to a court with power to grant the relief
      sought. Martin v. Frasure, [352 S.W.2d 817, 818 (Ky. 1962)]. One
      cannot accept the benefits of that portion of an opinion which is
      favorable and later relitigate that portion which is not. Upon
      receipt of an appellate court opinion, a party must determine
      whether he objects to any part of it and if he does, petition for
      rehearing or modification or move for discretionary review. Upon
      failure to take such procedural steps, a party will thereafter be
      bound by the entire opinion.10

      In the case at bar, the Court of Appeals granted Sutherland relief from

his illegal sentence in accordance with McClanahan and Phon.11 The Court of

Appeals, however, denied Sutherland relief from conviction under either

McClanahan or Jackson. As noted above, Sutherland’s instant appeal to this

      10   Id. at 325-26.
      11 McClanahan, 308 S.W.3d at 701; Phon v. Commonwealth, 545 S.W.3d 284,

302 (Ky. 2018).

                                         5
Court seeks relief on the issues which were not decided in his favor by the

Court of Appeals.

      Under our appellate procedure, once Sutherland received the adverse

decisions, he was required to seek further relief in either the Court of Appeals

or in this Court or have the Court of Appeals opinion become the law of the

case. “A final decision of [the Court of Appeals], whether right or wrong, is the

law of the case and is conclusive of the questions therein resolved. . . . It may

not be reconsidered by prosecuting an appeal from a judgment entered in

conformity therewith.”12 Sutherland did not petition the Court of Appeals for

rehearing or modification of its opinion, nor did he move the Kentucky

Supreme Court for discretionary review. The Court of Appeals’ opinion became

final March 18, 2020. Sutherland cannot use the amended judgment to

relitigate the issues decided by the Court of Appeals.

                                         ORDER

      Sutherland’s appeal from the amended judgment is not properly before

this Court. Sutherland’s appeal is dismissed.

      VanMeter, C.J.; Bisig, Conley, Keller, Lambert, and Nickell, JJ. sitting.

All concur. Thompson, J. not sitting.

      ENTERED: March 23, 2023.

                                          _____________________________________
                                          CHIEF JUSTICE

      12   Martin, 352 S.W.2d at 818 (citations omitted).

                                             6