Court Opinion

ID: 9399187
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-02 14:06:29.894089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:44.983497
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: MAY 26, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals

                               NO. 2022-CA-0904-MR

DEANGELO T. POLLARD                                                APPELLANT

               APPEAL FROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT
v.               HONORABLE KAREN L. WILSON, JUDGE
                       ACTION NO. 18-CR-00072

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                             APPELLEE

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

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

LAMBERT, JUDGE: Deangelo T. Pollard appeals pro se from the Henderson

Circuit Court’s order denying his motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to

Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42 and for an evidentiary hearing.

Finding no error, we affirm.
                FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

            Our Supreme Court set forth much of the relevant factual and

procedural history of this matter in Pollard v. Commonwealth, No. 2019-SC-0471-

MR, 2021 WL 1133848 (Ky. Mar. 25, 2021).

                    In November 2017, Devin Fields, with a friend,
            Charles Olson, drove to Henderson, Kentucky. Olson
            testified that Fields’ intent was to sell marijuana.
            Eventually, they met Keandre Tapp and Z.G., a juvenile,
            in a park. Tapp and Z.G. advised that they needed a ride
            to their brother’s apartment to get money. These four
            then got in Fields’ car: Fields drove, Olson sat in the
            front passenger seat, with Tapp and Z.G. in the back.
            When they arrived at their destination, Tapp and Z.G.
            exited the vehicle. According to Olson, three people got
            in the back of the car 5 to 10 minutes later. Fields then
            started laying out marijuana on the front center console.
            At that point, Olson felt a gun at the back of his head
            with a warning not to move. A scuffle ensued over the
            marijuana, and someone from the back seat shot Fields
            fatally in the chest. Olson did not know who fired the
            shot but believed it came from the back center or back
            right.

                   Tapp testified at trial. He had never met Fields
            prior to the day in question, but had communicated with
            him through Snapchat, learned Fields would be travelling
            through Henderson and discussed buying marijuana from
            Fields. Tapp was, however, good friends with Z.G. and
            Pollard. He told them of his plan to buy marijuana, but
            that Pollard wanted to rob Fields, taking the marijuana
            instead. Tapp’s testimony corroborated Olson’s
            testimony about the initial meeting, driving to the other
            apartment complex, and Tapp and Z.G. exiting the
            vehicle. When Tapp and Z.G. with Pollard returned to
            Fields’ car, Tapp and Pollard were armed; Tapp had a .22
            revolver and Pollard had a silver and black .38 special.

                                       -2-
               Tapp sat behind Fields, Z.G. was in the center back, and
               Pollard was behind Olson. When Fields displayed the
               marijuana, Tapp and Pollard revealed their guns. Tapp
               testified that, in the fight over the marijuana, Pollard shot
               Fields after Fields grabbed Tapp’s revolver. Immediately
               following the shooting, Pollard and Tapp exited the
               vehicle and fled. Tapp acknowledged making a plea
               bargain in exchange for his testimony.

                      Z.G. testified about his involvement. He testified
               that he was very close to Tapp, but only knew Pollard as
               an acquaintance. His testimony corroborated that of
               Olson and Tapp as to the initial meeting and driving to
               the other apartment complex, although he denied initial
               knowledge of the marijuana transaction/robbery. He
               corroborated Tapp’s account of returning to Fields’ car
               with Pollard, but that when Z.G. realized something bad
               was about to happen, he said he had to go to the
               bathroom and got out of the car. Z.G. testified that he
               saw Tapp and Pollard pull their guns, the scuffle, and
               then Pollard shoot Fields.

                       Following a police investigation which implicated
               Tapp and Pollard, Pollard was arrested. The Henderson
               Circuit Court grand jury indicted Pollard on two counts:
               a) murder and b) first degree robbery and/or complicity
               to first degree robbery. At trial, the jury acquitted
               Pollard of murder, but convicted him of complicity to
               first degree robbery. The trial court imposed the jury’s
               recommended sentence of twenty-years imprisonment.

Id. at *1-2.

               Following an unsuccessful appeal, Pollard moved the Henderson

Circuit Court to vacate his conviction pursuant to RCr 11.42. The substance of his

motion to that effect and how the trial court disposed of his various arguments will

                                            -3-
be discussed in our analysis, below. In short, the trial court denied his motion

without an evidentiary hearing, and Pollard now appeals.

                           STANDARD OF REVIEW

             In a motion brought under RCr 11.42, “[t]he movant has the burden of

establishing convincingly that he or she was deprived of some substantial right

which would justify the extraordinary relief provided by [a] post-conviction

proceeding.” Simmons v. Commonwealth, 191 S.W.3d 557, 561 (Ky. 2006),

overruled on other grounds by Leonard v. Commonwealth, 279 S.W.3d 151, 159

(Ky. 2009) (citation omitted). An RCr 11.42 motion “is limited to issues that were

not and could not be raised on direct appeal.” Id.

             A successful petition for relief under RCr 11.42 for ineffective

assistance of counsel must survive the twin prongs of “performance” and

“prejudice” provided in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct.

2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984); accord Gall v. Commonwealth, 702 S.W.2d

37, 39-40 (Ky. 1985). As explained by the Kentucky Supreme Court, “[a]

deficient performance contains errors so serious that counsel was not functioning

as the counsel guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.”

Commonwealth v. McGorman, 489 S.W.3d 731, 736 (Ky. 2016) (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted). Moreover, “a court must indulge a strong

presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable

                                         -4-
professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that,

under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial

strategy.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S. Ct. at 2065 (internal quotation marks

omitted). As further stated in Strickland, “the court should recognize that counsel

is strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant

decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment.” Id. at 690, 104 S.

Ct. at 2066. As to the second Strickland prong, the defendant has the duty to

“affirmatively prove prejudice.” Id. at 693, 104 S. Ct. at 2067.

             Appellate review of the denial of an RCr 11.42 motion is de novo.

McGorman, 489 S.W.3d at 736. Where the trial court does not hold an evidentiary

hearing on an RCr 11.42 motion, appellate review is limited to “whether the

motion on its face states grounds that are not conclusively refuted by the record

and which, if true, would invalidate the conviction.” Lewis v. Commonwealth, 411

S.W.2d 321, 322 (Ky. 1967) (citations omitted). An evidentiary hearing is only

required “if there is a material issue of fact that cannot be conclusively resolved,

i.e., conclusively proved or disproved, by an examination of the record.” Fraser v.

Commonwealth, 59 S.W.3d 448, 452 (Ky. 2001) (citations omitted).

                                     ANALYSIS

             Pollard argues that the record or applicable law does not refute each of

the arguments he asserted in his RCr 11.42 motion, and that the trial court

                                          -5-
accordingly erred in disposing of his motion without providing him an evidentiary

hearing. In that regard, Pollard begins by faulting his trial counsel for failing to

object when the trial court refused a request from the jury, made during its

deliberations, to review a transcript or trial footage of the parties’ opening and

closing arguments. He argues that if the trial court had granted the request, it

would have alleviated any confusion the jury may have had regarding his case.

               We disagree that this qualified as a basis for relief. When the trial

court denied the jury’s request from the bench, it did so consistently with the law.

Juries deliberate upon the evidence. Arguments of counsel are not evidence.

Chipman v. Commonwealth, 313 S.W.3d 95, 101 (Ky. 2010) (citation omitted).

And, juries must ultimately “recall the evidence themselves rather than rely solely

on arguments of counsel.” Smith v. Wright, 512 S.W.2d 943, 947 (Ky. 1974). In

its subsequent order disposing of Pollard’s RCr 11.42 motion, the trial court further

explained:

               [E]ven assuming RCr 9.74[1] allows for the replaying of
               argument as well as testimony, the Court concludes that
               the decision whether to object to the Court’s ruling was a
               matter of trial strategy, and counsels’ decision not to
               object was within the range of reasonable professional
               assistance.

1
  RCr 9.74 provides: “No information requested by the jury or any juror after the jury has retired
for deliberation shall be given except in open court in the presence of the defendant (unless the
defendant is being tried in absentia) and the entire jury, and in the presence of or after reasonable
notice to counsel for the parties.”

                                                -6-
             We find no error in this respect; no discernable prejudice to Pollard;

and no reason to part with the trial court’s sound judgment.

             Next, Pollard faults his counsel for failing to effectively cross-

examine and impeach Keandre Tapp at trial. Pollard speculates that if his counsel

had done so, enough evidence might have been elicited to support giving the jury

the option of finding him guilty of the lesser offense of criminal facilitation per

Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 506.080.

             This argument lacks merit for at least two reasons. First, it is founded

upon rank speculation, and speculation as to either deficiency of performance or

prejudicial result is insufficient to warrant relief pursuant to RCr 11.42. Hodge v.

Commonwealth, 116 S.W.3d 463, 470 (Ky. 2003), overruled on other grounds by

Leonard, 279 S.W.3d at 157 (Ky. 2009). Second, Pollard did not make this

argument before the trial court, and it is therefore unpreserved. Below, he merely

faulted his counsel for failing to subpoena Tapp to secure his testimony at trial.

Rejecting that argument, the trial court correctly noted that Tapp did testify at trial

and was subject to cross-examination.

             Next, Pollard speculates that his counsel confused the jury during

closing arguments by failing to explain and expound upon the instruction given

regarding his charge of complicity to first degree robbery. Also, he suspects the

Commonwealth may have secured an unfair advantage against him because, unlike

                                          -7-
his counsel, the Commonwealth did explain and expound upon that instruction

during its closing arguments. However, speculation is insufficient for purposes of

RCr 11.42, and nothing beyond Pollard’s speculation supports that the jury was

confused about how it was required to resolve his complicity charge. The

Commonwealth did not misstate the law regarding Pollard’s charge of complicity

to first degree robbery during its closing arguments; the written jury instructions

did not misstate the law either; and “[j]uries are presumed to follow the

instructions of the trial court.” Matheney v. Commonwealth, 191 S.W.3d 599, 606

(Ky. 2006) (citations omitted).

             Next, Pollard faults his counsel for failing to assert several objections

to the instructions that were provided to the jury. As to the first objection, Pollard

argues his counsel should have ensured that the instructions provided the jury the

option of finding him guilty of the lesser offense of criminal facilitation. However,

this argument is refuted by the record. As the trial court correctly observed in its

dispositive order, Pollard’s counsel did seek such an instruction, and he also raised

objections to the trial court’s refusal to provide it prior to the jury’s deliberations

and in a post-judgment motion for a new trial. Thus, his counsel effectively

preserved that issue for purposes of Pollard’s direct appeal.

             Second, Pollard asserts that his counsel should have objected when

the trial court held, during its jury instructions hearing, that no evidence justified

                                           -8-
instructions that would have permitted the jury to consider “extreme emotional

disturbance” (EED) or “self-protection” as defenses to Pollard’s charges. Pollard

asserts that such evidence was adduced at trial. In his brief, he elaborates upon this

point, and somewhat revisits his previously addressed “facilitation” argument, as

follows:

                    The evidence shows that Deangelo T. Pollard,
             Appellant, was in a car of Devin Fields, victim, and
             Deandre Tapp because (Tapp) had used Appellant’s
             address to persuade the victims to a different location
             such as Appellant’s apartment complex by telling him
             Appellant was the person loaning him money to buy the
             marijuana to commit this crime. There was evidence
             (Appellant knew about the marijuana buy by loaning
             money but did not know about the robbery). There is
             evidence where [Z.G.] testified Appellant said that he did
             not want any part of the robbery. There was evidence
             Appellant was in the car with Devin Fields, victim, and
             Keandre Tapp, and [Z.G.] when Devin Fields, victim,
             and Keandre Tapp [were] fighting over a handgun while
             Appellant was in the back seat of Devin Fields[’] car
             which, if the gun does go off the Appellant could have
             been shoot [sic] or killed so under extreme emotional
             disturbance Appellant acted under EED Self Protection
             by trying to take the gun from Tapp and Fields so, he did
             not get shot by the gun which they [were] fighting over.
             The judge took out the EED/Self Protection instructions.

             ...

                   Appellant claims that there was “evidence from
             which the jury could have found he acted in self-
             defense/or Facilitated in the crimes of Murder and First
             Degree Robbery because he knew about the marijuana
             buy and was loaning money to the principal which a
             crime was committed and that he tried to stop the

                                         -9-
              Robbery by taking the gun that Fields and Tapp [were]
              fighting over and that he was only trying to protect
              himself from getting shot by the gun Tapp and Devin
              Fields [were] fighting over while he was in the car.
              Appellant did not know about the Robbery and the
              evidence shows he did try to stop the robbery by trying to
              take the gun when the victim got shot in the process.

              We disagree that this is a basis of RCr 11.42 relief. EED and self-

protection are justifications or mitigations for actions that could otherwise qualify

as criminal offenses. Whether EED or self-protection instructions might2 have

been warranted regarding Pollard’s murder charge is a moot point because, as

noted at the onset, Pollard was acquitted of that charge. Accordingly, he suffered

no prejudice by not receiving those instructions.

              As for what he was convicted of (i.e., first-degree robbery), any

instructions regarding EED or self-protection would have been illogical and

unwarranted. Pollard is not arguing that his robbery (or complicity in the robbing)

of Fields was justified or mitigated because he was suffering from a state of EED at

the time, or because he was required to do so for the sake of self-preservation.

Rather, Pollard’s argument is that he had no hand in robbing Fields at all: In his

2
  Tangentially, we note that a victim’s resistance to a defendant’s armed robbery attempt is not
the kind of reasonable explanation or excuse that would justify the defendant’s loss of judgment
and uncontrolled reaction required for an EED defense. See Hodge v. Commonwealth, 17
S.W.3d 824, 850 (Ky. 2000).

                                              -10-
view, the evidence demonstrated “he did not know about the robbery,” “did not

want any part of the robbery,” and that “he tried to stop the robbery[.]”

             We note that Pollard’s argument set forth above is also a departure

from how he defended himself at trial. There, he also contended that he had no

hand in robbing Fields and that he was being falsely accused, but his overarching

thesis was that no physical evidence even placed him in the victim’s car or

otherwise at the scene of the robbery, and that the only evidence that did place him

there – which consisted of testimony from Z.G. and Tapp – lacked credibility.

Pursuing EED and self-protection defenses would have undermined any trial

strategy focused upon demonstrating that Pollard did not participate in any

robbery, or that he was not even at the scene of the crime. Thus, we find no error

or abuse of discretion in the trial court’s conclusion that the lack of any EED or

self-protection instruction caused Pollard no prejudice, and that his counsel’s

decision not to pursue those instructions was within the range of reasonable

professional assistance.

             As a somewhat related aside, Pollard further argues that his mental

state at the time of his offense should have been “evaluated,” and that his counsel

was deficient for failing to have such an evaluation conducted, and for failing to

adduce evidence at trial in that regard. As discussed, however, his counsel’s trial

strategy did not focus upon Pollard’s mental state, but rather upon demonstrating

                                        -11-
that Pollard did not participate in any crime at all. As indicated, his counsel’s

strategy was within the realm of reasonable professional assistance, and we cannot

second-guess his counsel’s decision to refrain from undermining that strategy.

             Pollard thirdly argues that his counsel should have raised a double-

jeopardy objection. In this vein, we adopt the following part of the trial court’s

dispositive order, which properly summarized and correctly rejected Pollard’s

argument as follows:

             Pollard argues that his trial counsel erred by failing to
             establish a defense of double jeopardy. He asserts that,
             while first degree robbery is not a lesser included offense
             of murder, the elements and factual allegations are
             similar enough that they are effectively the same offense.
             Therefore, counsel should have objected to the jury being
             instructed on murder and first degree robbery as separate
             crimes, because for him to be convicted of both would
             have violated double jeopardy. Pollard further argues
             once he was acquitted of murder, he must necessarily
             have been acquitted of first degree robbery as well. Cf.
             KRS 505.040.

                    However, review of the law indicates that this is
             not the case. Bennett v. Commonwealth, Ky. 978
             S.W.2d 322 (1998). Kentucky law uses the Blockburger
             test[FN] and KRS 505.020 in determining when a single
             course of conduct may establish more than one offense.
             Id., 327.

                    [FN] Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S.
                    299 (1932).

             That test is whether the conduct violates two distinct
             statutes and, if so, whether each statute requires proof of
             an element the other does not. Id.

                                         -12-
                     Here, the offenses of murder and first degree
             robbery each have an element the other does not. Id.
             The death of the victim is an element necessary to
             convict of murder, but is not required to convict of first
             degree robbery. KRS 507.020(1). Theft or attempted
             theft is an element necessary to convict of first degree
             robbery, but is not required to convict of murder. KRS
             515.020(1).

                    There was no implication of double jeopardy in the
             grand jury’s indicting the defendant or the Court’s
             instructing the jury on both murder and first degree
             robbery. Defense counsel made no error in failing to
             object to it. Likewise, acquittal on the count of murder
             did not necessarily lead to acquittal on the count of
             robbery. Counsel made no error outside the range of
             reasonable professional assistance, and there is no error
             which prejudiced the defense or made the result of the
             trial unreliable.

             The fourth objection Pollard faults his counsel for not making, relative

to the jury instructions, relates to the “complicity to first degree robbery”

instruction provided to the jury. That instruction was as follows:

                               INSTRUCTION NO. 4

             If you do not find the defendant guilty under Instruction
             No. 3, you will find him guilty of Complicity to First
             Degree Robbery under this Instruction if, and only if, you
             believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt all
             of the following:

             A. That in this county on or about November 10, 2017,
             the defendant, in complicity with Keandre Tapp, stole or
             attempted to steal marijuana from Devin Fields;

             B. That in the course of so doing and with intent to
             accomplish the theft, the defendant, in complicity with

                                         -13-
              Keandre Tapp, used or threatened the immediate use of
              physical force upon Devin Fields;

              AND

              C. That in the course of doing so and with intent to
              accomplish the theft, either the defendant or Keandre
              Tapp caused physical injury to Devin Fields by shooting
              him with a handgun.

(Emphasis added.)

              Pollard argues this instruction subjected him to a non-unanimous

verdict because its above-emphasized wording did not require the jury to determine

whether he was the principal robber or an accomplice.3

              We disagree. In Kentucky, “a general jury verdict based on an

instruction including two or more separate instances of a criminal offense, whether

explicitly stated in the instruction or based on the proof – violates the requirement

of a unanimous verdict.” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 405 S.W.3d 439, 449 (Ky.

2013). However, such a situation is not to be confused with one instance of a

criminal offense which may have been committed directly, through being the actor

who physically did it, or indirectly as an accomplice. As explained in King v.

Commonwealth, 554 S.W.3d 343, 352 (Ky. 2018):

                    This court recognizes and has consistently
              maintained that the jurors may reach a unanimous verdict
              even though they may not all agree upon the means or

3
  In Henderson Circuit Court case no. 18-CR-00073, Keandre Tapp was convicted of facilitation
to first-degree assault and conspiracy to first-degree robbery, pursuant to a guilty plea.

                                            -14-
             method by which a defendant has committed the criminal
             act. Conrad v. Commonwealth, 534 S.W.3d 779, 784
             (Ky. 2017) (quoting Miller v. Commonwealth, 77 S.W.3d
             566, 574 (Ky. 2002)) (A “conviction of the same offense
             under either of two alternative theories does not deprive a
             defendant of his right to a unanimous verdict if there is
             evidence to support a conviction under either theory.”).
             Nor is the jury required to agree upon the defendant’s
             mental state in cases where alternative mental states
             authorize conviction for the same criminal act. Wells v.
             Commonwealth, 561 S.W.2d 85, 88 (Ky. 1978) (“We
             hold that a verdict cannot be successfully attacked upon
             the ground that the jurors could have believed either of
             two theories of the case where both interpretations are
             supported by the evidence and the proof of either beyond
             a reasonable doubt constitutes the same offense.”).
             Neither Harp [v. Commonwealth, 266 S.W.3d 813 (Ky.
             2008)], Johnson, nor their progeny changes that.

                    However, we have also held consistently with
             virtually every other American jurisdiction to address the
             matter, that juror unanimity means that jurors must agree
             upon the specific instance of criminal behavior
             committed by the defendant but they need not agree upon
             his means or method of committing the act or causing the
             prohibited result.

             The fact that either Pollard or Tapp may have been the principal

robber does not mean that they are not each guilty of robbery, whether as a

principal or as an accomplice pursuant to KRS 502.020, for this single act.

Similarly, where, as here, the evidence indicated that either Pollard or his co-

defendant could have been the principal robber or an accomplice, and “it was

impossible to determine that either appellant was only a principal or only an

accomplice[,]” “[a] verdict cannot be attacked as being non-unanimous where both

                                         -15-
theories are supported by sufficient evidence.” Halvorsen v. Commonwealth, 730

S.W.2d 921, 925 (Ky. 1986) (citation omitted). Accordingly, there was no

unanimity problem, and the trial court correctly rejected this argument as well.

             The remainder of Pollard’s arguments concern various rulings the trial

court made during his trial, which he claims were erroneous. We will not discuss

these arguments beyond stating that they do not involve ineffective assistance of

his counsel, and that Pollard could and should have made them in his direct appeal.

                                 CONCLUSION

             In sum, the record and applicable law refuted Pollard’s allegations and

arguments set forth in his RCr 11.42 motion. Accordingly, the Henderson Circuit

Court properly denied his motion, and the was no need for an evidentiary hearing

or the appointment of counsel. We therefore AFFIRM.

             ALL CONCUR.

                                        -16-
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:           BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Deangelo T. Pollard, pro se     Daniel Cameron
Wheelwright, Kentucky           Attorney General of Kentucky

                                Ken W. Riggs
                                Assistant Attorney General
                                Frankfort, Kentucky

                              -17-