Court Opinion

ID: 9893483
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-27 14:07:19.048026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:16.537976
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: OCTOBER 20, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                            NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                    Commonwealth of Kentucky
                                 Court of Appeals
                                  NO. 2023-CA-0432-MR

JOSHUA CREUTZ                                                        APPELLANT

                      APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT
v.                    HONORABLE MARY K. MOLLOY, JUDGE
                            ACTION NO. 06-CR-00004

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                               APPELLEE

                                      OPINION
                                     REVERSING
                                   AND REMANDING

                                     ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: COMBS, JONES, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

COMBS, JUDGE: On January 6, 2006, a Kenton County Grand Jury indicted the

Appellant, Joshua Creutz (Creutz), of sodomy in the first degree, a class A felony,

in violation of KRS1 510.070, occurring on or about October 28, 2005. On

September 1, 2006, the Grand Jury indicted Creutz of Count 2, sodomy in the first

1
    Kentucky Revised Statutes.
degree, a class A felony, in violation of KRS 510.070, occurring between August

1, 2005, and October 28, 2005.

             On March 19, 2007, Creutz entered a plea of guilty to the charge of

sodomy in the first degree, a class A felony. Upon the Commonwealth’s motion,

the charge contained in count 2 of the indictment was dismissed.

             On May 4, 2007, the Kenton Circuit Court entered final judgment.

The court sentenced Creutz to a term of twenty (20) years and “FURTHER

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, in addition to the foregoing sentence,

pursuant to KRS 532.043, the Defendant is sentenced to a period of conditional

discharge for five (5) years from and after expiration of his sentence or completion

of parole.” (Emphasis original.)

             On June 29, 2022, Blake Taylor, Offender Information Services,

Department of Corrections, filed a letter in Kenton Circuit Court dated June 23,

2022, as follows in relevant part:

             This correspondence is in reference to the Final
             Judgment Sentence of Imprisonment the Department of
             Corrections has received for Joshua Creutz in Kenton
             Circuit Court indictment number 06-CR-00004.

             Joshua Creutz stands convicted of Sodomy, 1st Degree --
             victim LT 12 YOA which was committed 10/28/05.

             The court[’]s order states that Joshua Cruetz [sic] is
             sentenced to a five (5) year period of conditional
             discharge which appears not to be in agreement with
             KRS 532.043 which requires a three (3) year period of

                                        -2-
             conditional discharge based upon the dates the offenses
             were committed.

             It was not the intent of the court to place this offender on
             a five (5) year period of conditional discharge, I
             respectfully request an amended order be forwarded to
             our office. If no amendment is received, he will remain
             on a five (5) year period of conditional discharge as
             ordered by the court.

             A hand-written notation at the bottom of the letter signed by

Honorable Mary K. Molloy, Judge, dated 7/13/22, states that “I defer to previous

judge (Greg Bartlett) decision on this matter.”

             On December 27, 2022, Creutz, pro se, filed a motion to correct final

judgment and sentence, stating in relevant part:

             1. That the Movant is currently being housed at the
                Kentucky State Reformatory [KSR] . . . under the
                custody and care of the Kentucky Department of
                Corrections.

             2. That the Movant stands convicted of Sodomy 1st
                Degree [sic] that was allegedly occurred on October
                28, 2005.

             3. That the charge that the Movant stands convicted of
                was alleged to have occurred prior to July 12, 2006.

             4. That pursuant to 2000 Ky. HB 475 the Movant is only
                subject to a three year Conditional Discharge.

             5. That the Movant has exhausted his Administrative
                Remedies when he filed a “17.4 Administrative
                Review Form.”

                                         -3-
             6. That as a result of the “17.4 Administrative Review
                Form”, Blake Taylor, Correctional Offender
                Information Supervisor, KSR sent a letter to this
                Honorable Court requesting the amendment of the
                Judgment of Conviction. (SEE EXHIBIT 1)

             7. That since the date of June 23, 2022, the Judgment of
                Conviction in the above mentioned case has not been
                amended.

(Emphasis original.)

             By Order entered March 10, 2023, the Kenton Circuit Court denied

Creutz’s motion as follows in relevant part:

             The relevant statute (KRS 532.043) prior to July 12,
             2006, allowed for a conditional discharge of three (3)
             years but was changed on July 12, 2006, to allow for a
             conditional discharge of five (5) years. The acts for
             which the Defendant stands convicted occurred in 2005,
             while the Final Judgment and Sentence was not imposed
             until 2007, after the statute changed. Under these
             circumstances, the determination of the term of years for
             the conditional discharge was within the discretion of the
             Judge who imposed that sentence. This Court shall not
             disturb the prior Judge’s decision to impose the longer
             period of conditional discharge.

             Creutz, pro se, appeals and argues that the trial court abused its

discretion in denying his motion. The Commonwealth responds that it is

compelled to concede that Creutz is subject to the three-year period of post-

incarceration, not five years.

             As the Commonwealth explains, KRS 532.043 requires that any

person convicted of an offense under KRS Chapter 510 -- which includes first-

                                         -4-
degree sodomy -- is subject to a period of post-incarceration supervision. The

Commonwealth also notes that the five-year period has only been in effect since

the statute was amended in 2006; that the statute previously required a three-year

period;2 and that under Kentucky law, defendants are subject to the law in effect

when the offense was committed, citing Sanderson v. Commonwealth, 291

S.W.3d 610 (Ky. 2009).

              In Sanderson, the appellant was convicted of two counts of second-

degree sodomy and three counts of first-degree sexual abuse and was sentenced to

five years of conditional discharge. Our Supreme Court held that:

              [T]he version of KRS 532.043 in effect at the time these
              offenses were allegedly committed (prior to July 2006)
              only allowed for a conditional discharge of three years.
              The situation here is on point with Purvis v.
              Commonwealth, 14 S.W.3d 21 (Ky. 2000), where a prior
              amendment of KRS 532.043 increased the maximum
              length of conditional discharge. In Purvis, this Court

2
  The version of KRS 532.043 which was effective to July 11, 2006, provided as follows in
relevant part:

              (1) In addition to the penalties authorized by law, any person
                  convicted of, pleading guilty to, or entering an [North Carolina
                  v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 901 S. Ct. 160, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162
                  (1970),] plea to a felony offense under KRS Chapter 510 . . .
                  shall be subject to a period of conditional discharge following
                  release from:

                         (a) Incarceration upon expiration of sentence; or

                         (b) Completion of parole.

              (2) The period of conditional discharge shall be three (3) years.

                                              -5-
             held that the amendment disadvantaged the Appellant in
             that case and that its retroactive application was an ex
             post facto law and, thus unconstitutional. Id. at 24. The
             situation here is identical. Therefore, Appellant’s
             sentence to conditional discharge could not exceed
             three years, the statutory maximum at the time the
             alleged offenses took place.

Sanderson, 291 S.W.3d at 615 (Ky. 2009)(emphasis added). Accordingly, we

conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Creutz’s motion.

             We reverse the Order of the Kenton Circuit Court denying Creutz’s

motion to correct final judgment and sentence and remand this case for entry of an

amended judgment imposing a conditional discharge of three years.

             ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                       BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Joshua Creutz, pro se                      Daniel Cameron
LaGrange, Kentucky                         Attorney General of Kentucky

                                           Stephanie L. McKeehan
                                           Assistant Attorney General
                                           Frankfort, Kentucky

                                         -6-