Court Opinion

ID: 9402195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-15 15:08:01.246628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:58.364221
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: JUNE 15, 2023
                                                             TO BE PUBLISHED

                  Supreme Court of Kentucky
                                    2022-SC-0120-MR

ALEX RYAN PAYNE                                                      APPELLANT

                    ON APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT
V.                     HONORABLE LISA P. JONES, JUDGE
                               NO. 19-CR-00834

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                              APPELLEE

                  OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE NICKELL

                                      AFFIRMING

      Alex Ryan Payne was convicted in Daviess Circuit Court of twelve counts

of possession of matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor; six counts

of use of a minor in a sexual performance with a victim under age sixteen; and

one count of use of minor in a sexual performance with a victim under age

eighteen. He was sentenced to a total of seventy years’ imprisonment and

appeals to this Court as a matter of right.1 Payne asserts the trial court erred

by: (1) denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the seizure of

his cellphone and passcode; and (2) incorrectly instructing the jury regarding

its discretion to recommend consecutive and concurrent sentences. After a

careful review, we affirm.

      1   Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b).
      In 2012, when Payne was twenty-three years of age, he met T.K., who

was then twelve years of age, on Facebook. Payne initially posed as a fifteen-

year-old boy. T.K. discovered Payne was not fifteen years of age when he sent

her a photo of himself. Payne eventually requested nude photos from T.K.,

which she provided. He would also send explicit photos of himself. They

remained in contact online and over the phone for two years until T.K. broke off

contact with Payne.

      T.K. later resumed contact with Payne when she was seventeen years of

age because Payne had begun communicating with her younger sister. Payne

asked T.K. if they could meet so that T.K. could perform oral sex on him. T.K.

complied, believing Payne would expose their prior relationship if she did not

agree. Payne and T.K. met several other times and engaged in oral and

penetrative sex. During one of these encounters, Payne recorded T.K.

performing oral sex on him, without her knowledge.

      Payne began to stalk and harass T.K. After T.K. again cut off contact

with Payne, Payne sent nude pictures of T.K. to her boyfriend and created a

fake Facebook account using a photograph of T.K. performing oral sex as the

profile picture. Following this incident, T.K. reported Payne to the police.

      Based on information provided by T.K. and additional investigation,

Detective Brad Youngman obtained a warrant to search the residence of

Payne’s mother. During the search, Det. Youngman seized one of Payne’s

cellphones. Det. Youngman also coordinated with Indiana law enforcement

officers who obtained a warrant to search the residence of Payne’s girlfriend,

                                        2
Payne’s vehicles, and his electronic devices. The Indiana warrant did not

authorize the search of Payne’s person.

      Indiana State Police Det. Brock Werne and another detective located

Payne at his workplace in Perry County, Indiana. Det. Werne did not mention

the search warrant and asked Payne to turn over his cellphone and password.

Payne voluntarily agreed. A forensic search of Payne’s two cellphones revealed

sexually explicit material containing minors.

      Det. Youngman identified one of the girls, A.D., who in turn identified

M.W. Payne began contacting A.D. when she was fourteen years old and M.W.

when she was twelve years old. As with T.K., Payne initially posed as a

teenager. He eventually requested that each of the girls take off their shirts

while talking to him online and they complied. Det. Youngman identified six

photographs of another victim, S.B., who was ten years old. In this instance,

Payne pretended to be a twelve-year old boy and requested that S.B. send him

nude photos. Unfortunately, Det. Youngman was unable to identify another

young girl who appeared in ten explicit photographs found on Payne’s

cellphone.

      Payne was indicted on twelve counts of possession of matter portraying a

sexual performance by a minor; six counts of use of a minor in a sexual

performance with a victim under 16 years of age; and one count of use of a

minor in a sexual performance with a victim under 18 years of age. Prior to

trial, Payne filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of

his cellphones, which the trial court denied. Following trial, the jury convicted

                                          3
Payne on all charges. The trial court imposed a total sentence of seventy years’

imprisonment. This appeal followed.

      Payne first argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress

the evidence obtained from his cellphone. Specifically, he argues that he did

not voluntarily consent to provide his cellphone and password to law

enforcement. We disagree.

      The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in

their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and

seizures.” All warrantless searches are unreasonable, per se, under the Fourth

Amendment unless an established exception applies. Commonwealth v.

Hatcher, 199 S.W.3d 124, 126 (Ky. 2006). Consent is a valid exception to the

warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment. Commonwealth v. Neal,

84 S.W.3d 920, 923 (Ky. App. 2002). The Commonwealth bears the burden of

satisfying the requirements of a claimed exception. Id. “Whether a consent to

search was voluntarily given is a question of fact to be determined by a

preponderance of the evidence from the totality of all the circumstances.” Id. at

925 (quoting Talbott v. Commonwealth, 968 S.W.2d 76, 82 (Ky. 1998)).

      We review a trial court’s decision on a motion to suppress on two levels.

Id. at 923. First, we must “determine whether the trial court’s findings of fact

are supported by substantial evidence.” Id. If so, they are conclusive. Id.

Second, we must “conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s application of

the law to those facts to determine whether its decision is correct as a matter of

law.” Id.

                                        4
      The trial court entered detailed findings of fact. In cooperation with

Kentucky authorities, Det. Werne obtained a search warrant from the

magistrate of Perry County, Indiana, to search and seize any “computers or

electronic devices,” belonging to Payne, including cellular phones. The warrant

authorized Det. Werne to search the residence of Payne’s girlfriend, and the

three vehicles registered to Payne. The Indiana warrant did not authorize the

search of Payne’s person.

      Det. Werne located Payne at his place of employment in Perry County,

Indiana. Det. Werne and another detective were dressed in plain clothes. The

trial court described the encounter that followed:

      They identified themselves as law enforcement and asked at the
      office if they could speak with [Payne] who subsequently joined
      them in a private room. The Defendant was not placed under
      arrest. No guns were drawn. No voices were raised. No mention
      was made of the search warrant. [Det.] Werne asked [Payne] for
      his cell phone and password, and [Payne] willingly provided the
      device and information then requested an attorney. . . . There was
      no show of force. [Payne] was not in custody.

After Payne voluntarily produced his cellphone and password, Det. Werne

informed Payne that he had a search warrant.

      Payne now attempts to recast his voluntary consent as the product of

coercion by show of authority and deception. Contrary to Payne’s contention

that Det. Werne “insisted” that Payne turn over his cellphone, Det. Werne

testified that he simply asked for it and Payne willingly complied. Payne has

not pointed out any evidence of record to controvert the trial court’s factual

findings. He simply asks this Court to substitute our view of the evidence for

that of the trial court. This is not the function of an appellate court. Hampton
                                        5
v. Commonwealth, 231 S.W.3d 740, 749 (Ky. 2007). We have reviewed the

record and determined the trial court’s findings of fact were supported by

substantial evidence.

      Payne attempts to liken his situation to United States v. Mendenhall, 446

U.S. 544, 552 (1980). In Mendenhall, the Supreme Court identified several

factors to determine whether the seizure of a person has occurred, such that

consent may be deemed involuntary: “the threatening presence of several

officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the

person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that

compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled.” Id. at 555. None of

these factors are present here. We cannot conclude the trial court erred by

denying Payne’s motion to suppress.

      Payne next argues the trial court improperly instructed the jury

concerning their discretion to recommend consecutive or concurrent sentences

because it was not informed of the effect of KRS 532.110(1)(d). He concedes

this error was not properly preserved for review and requests palpable error

review.

      RCr2 10.26 authorizes an appellate court to review an unpreserved error

as follows:

      A palpable error which affects the substantial rights of a party may
      be considered by the court on motion for a new trial or by an
      appellate court on appeal, even though insufficiently raised or
      preserved for review, and appropriate relief may be granted upon a
      determination that manifest injustice has resulted from the error.

      2   Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure.

                                          6
A palpable error is “easily perceptible, plain, obvious, and readily noticeable.”

Brewer v. Commonwealth, 206 S.W.3d 343, 349 (Ky. 2006). To demonstrate

manifest injustice, a party must show the “probability of a different result or

error so fundamental as to threaten a defendant’s entitlement to due process of

law.” Martin v. Commonwealth, 207 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Ky. 2006). In other words, a

palpable error occurs where “the defect in the proceeding was shocking or

jurisprudentially intolerable.” Id. at 4.

      The jury initially recommended a total of sentence of seventeen years’

imprisonment which was structured as follows:

      •   Count 1— possession of matter portraying a sexual
          performance by a minor relating to victim, M.W. Class D felony.
          The jury recommended a sentence of one year.

      •   Count 2— possession of matter portraying a sexual
          performance by a minor relating to victim, A.D. Class D felony.
          The jury recommended a sentence of one year.

      •   Counts 3-8—use of a minor in a sexual performance, victim less
          than sixteen years of age—relating to S.B. Class B felony. The
          jury recommended a sentence of ten years on each count.

      •   Count 9—use of a minor in a sexual performance victim less
          than sixteen years of age—relating to victim, T.K. Class C
          felony. The jury recommended a sentence of five years.

      •   Counts 10-19—possession of matter portraying a sexual
          performance by a minor relating to an unidentified victim.
          Class D felony. The jury recommended a sentence of one year
          for each count.

The jury further recommended each one-year sentence under counts 1,

2, and 10-19 run consecutively for a total of twelve years, to be run

consecutively with the five-year sentence imposed under count 9. The

                                            7
jury further recommended each ten-year sentence under counts 3-8 run

concurrently with the other sentences for a total, combined sentence of

seventeen years’ imprisonment.

      Before final sentence was imposed, defense counsel informed the trial

court that the jury’s recommendation that counts 3-8 run concurrently with

the other sentences did not comply with KRS 532.110(1)(d), which requires

multiple sentences against multiple victims to run consecutively.

Subsequently, the trial court notified the parties that it may deviate from the

jury’s recommendation as to whether the sentences be run consecutively or

concurrently. The trial court further instructed the parties to present

arguments concerning whether the sentences should run consecutively or

concurrently.

      Prior to the final sentencing hearing, the trial court conducted a

conference in chambers and informed the parties it needed additional time to

review the applicable sentencing statutes, particularly KRS 532.110(1)(d), and

caselaw. The trial court then continued the final sentencing. After the final

sentencing hearing, the trial court ultimately concluded it was required to run

each of Payne’s individual sentences consecutively under KRS 532.110(1)(d) for

a total of seventy-seven years’ imprisonment, which it then reduced to seventy-

years under the statutory cap contained in KRS 532.110(1)(c).

      As a general matter, a trial court has the discretion to determine whether

multiple sentences should run consecutively or concurrently. KRS 532.110(1).

This discretion includes the authority to deviate from a jury’s recommendation

                                        8
on consecutive or concurrent sentences. Jones v. Commonwealth, 833 S.W.2d

839, 842 (Ky. 1992). KRS 532.110(1)(d) is an exception to the general rule and

provides “[t]he sentences of a defendant convicted of two (2) or more felony sex

crimes, as defined in KRS 17.500, involving two (2) or more victims shall run

consecutively.” This Court has specifically held that the purpose KRS

532.110(1)(d) is “to remove judicial discretion when sentencing sex offenses

generally by requiring that the sentences be run consecutively.”

Commonwealth v. Stambaugh, 327 S.W.3d 435, 438 (Ky. 2010).

      Payne argues that, while KRS 532.110(1)(d) requires the multiple

sentences involving multiple victims to be run consecutively, it allows for

multiple sentences involving the same victim to be run concurrently.

Specifically, Payne argues his sentences for offenses against S.B. could have

been run concurrently to each other, but consecutively to the sentences

imposed for offenses against A.D., M.W., and T.K. This formula would have

resulted in a recommended sentence of eighteen years’ imprisonment.

However, our decision in Stambaugh forecloses Payne’s argument.

      Before addressing Stambaugh, we note Payne’s citation to the

unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals in Johnson v. Commonwealth, No.

2016-CA-000421-MR, 2018 WL 1779365 (Ky. App. April 13, 2018). In

Johnson, the defendant was found guilty of multiple counts of sexual abuse

involving two victims. Id. at *2. The trial court determined the sentence

imposed on multiple counts involving Victim 1 were to run concurrently with

each other, but consecutive to the sentences imposed on multiple counts

                                        9
involving Victim 2. Id. We are not persuaded by the unpublished Johnson

decision because our published decision in Stambaugh speaks directly to the

issue. Further, the propriety of the defendant’s sentence was not at issue in

Johnson—so the Court of Appeals did not address it. Id.

      In Stambaugh, the defendant was charged with four counts of sexual

abuse relating to three separate victims. 327 S.W.3d at 436. The jury

recommended each count run consecutively for a total sentence of forty years’

imprisonment. Id. However, the trial court reduced the sentence to twenty

years’ imprisonment after applying the statutory cap contained in KRS

532.110(1)(c). Id. The Commonwealth appealed to determine whether the trial

court properly applied the statutory cap. Id. at 437.

      We determined there was a conflict between the statutory cap in KRS

532.110(1)(c) and the requirement that sentences for multiple sexual felonies

against multiples victim be run consecutively. Id. at 438. In resolving the

conflict, we determined the cap contained in KRS 532.110(1)(c) controls over

the consecutive-sentence requirement in KRS 532.110(1)(d). Id. While the

propriety of running each of Stambaugh’s sentences was not specifically at

issue, this Court thoroughly interpreted the requirements of KRS 532.110(1)(d):

      KRS 532.110(1)(d) provides, in essence, that a person convicted of
      two or more qualifying sexual felonies involving two or more
      victims must be sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment.
      There is no question that Stambaugh’s four convictions for sexual
      abuse in the first degree are qualifying sexual felonies for purposes
      of KRS 532.110(1)(d). There is also no question that Stambaugh’s
      crimes were committed against multiple victims, three to be exact,
      as is required for KRS 532.110(1)(d) to apply.

                                       10
Id. at 437-38 (footnote omitted). Each of Stambaugh’s convictions were

required to run consecutively even though two counts related to a single victim.

Id. “It is clear, then, that the legislature intended for sentencing judges to run

sex offense sentences consecutively, but with a limit on the allowable aggregate

sentence.” Id. at 439.

      We cannot conclude the trial court committed palpable error by failing to

instruct the jury as to the effect of KRS 532.110(1)(d) on its discretion to

recommend consecutive or concurrent sentences. As stated above, the purpose

of KRS 532.110(1)(d) is to eliminate judicial discretion concerning whether to

impose consecutive or concurrent sentences when a person is convicted of

multiple sexual felonies involving multiple victims. Stambaugh, 327 S.W.3d at

438. The trial court was constrained to impose consecutive sentences for each

count pursuant to KRS 532.110(1)(d) and Stambaugh. Therefore, any error in

the jury instructions was immaterial.

      Accordingly, the judgment of the Daviess Circuit Court is affirmed.

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

concur. Thompson, J., concurs in result only.

                                        11
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:

Kayla D. Deatherage
Assistant Public Advocate

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:

Daniel Cameron
Attorney General of Kentucky

Thomas A. Van De Rostyne
Assistant Attorney General

                               12