Anthony Warren v. Commonwealth of Kentucky ( 2007 )

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION
THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED ."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THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE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UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS,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BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED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.
RENDERED : FEBRUARY 22, 2007
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
,sularmg d1ourf of IR
dwqFT "
2005-SC-000723-MR
p '
ew, ``~ .-_ iT
i
ANTHONY WARREN APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
V. HONORABLE JUDITH E. MCDONALD-BURKMAN, JUDGE
NOS. 03-CR-01687 AND 04-CR-01637
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
AFFIRMING
Appellant Anthony Warren appeals his conviction in the Jefferson Circuit Court
following a jury trial for robbery in the first degree, unlawful imprisonment in the first
degree, wanton endangerment in the first degree, and being a persistent felony
offender in the second degree . The charges in this case arose out of an incident at the
Park Hill neighborhood in Louisville. Everett Hunter was a former resident of the Park
Hill project and knew people who lived there. Hunter was known in the neighborhood
for buying cars and selling them after fixing them up . He was visiting Park Hill on March
19, 2003, in order to buy a car from Terrence Camp. He purchased a Buick from Camp
for $400. Camp, appellant, and some others from the neighborhood were gambling in a
dice game. Hunter decided he did not want to gamble and also did not want to reveal
to the players that he was carrying a wad of money at that time . Hunter left the
neighborhood, but the Buick he bought remained in the parking lot at Park Hill.
Later that day, Hunter drove his Cadillac into the lot. He began to work on the
stereo in the Cadillac, and decided to take wires for it out of the Buick . He was
speaking with Terrence Camp as he leaned into the car. Suddenly, he noticed that
Camp had stopped talking . Hunter looked up and saw two people outside the car.
They were wearing "hoodies," or hooded sweatshirts, with the hoods pulled over their
faces . One was standing near the car door; the second person was standing toward
the back of the car.
The man nearest Hunter pointed a handgun at him and demanded his money .
When Hunter didn't respond, the man repeated the demand for his money and also
demanded the keys to the car. Arthur Coleman showed up to help Hunter. Hunter,
conscious of the weapon, told Coleman that it was okay, that he would give them his
money and for Coleman not to try to fight them . The gunman told Coleman to lie down
on the ground . Hunter gave his money to the man with the gun. The man told him to
get into his trunk. Hunter resisted, but the man said that he was serious . Hunter got
into the trunk of the Buick and the man demanded the keys to Hunter's Cadillac . The
robber's knowledge that both were his cars made Hunter believe that he was set up by
someone in the neighborhood . The man closed the trunk on Hunter. The robbers fled .
Others in the neighborhood who had observed the incident called the police, but
although they were patrolling the neighborhood, the police did not stop until it was over.
Meanwhile, those in the neighborhood tried to get Hunter out of the trunk by prying it
open. Eventually the fire department was called . The fire department could not open
the trunk, but they passed Hunter bolt cutters through the bent trunk lid, which he used
to release himself from the trunk. At the scene, Hunter told Detective Keeling of the
Louisville Metro Police Department that he had seen the person who robbed him . He
told Detective Keeling that he knew him from the Park Hill neighborhood and that it was
someone who he knew hung out at the liquor store. He said if the detective gave him a
few days he would be able to come up with the perpetrator's name . Five days later,
Hunter called Detective Keeling and told him he had learned the gunman's name was
Anthony Warren . The detective put together a photo pack of pictures of six men similar
in description to Anthony Warren and showed the photo pack to Hunter. Hunter
identified Warren in a matter of seconds as the person who robbed him . The second
person who participated in the robbery was never identified .
Harold Miller was at Park Hill that day visiting Hunter's brother. He testified at
trial that he observed Hunter and Arthur Coleman just as they were about to be robbed .
He saw that they had their hands in the air and heard Hunter tell Coleman to do what
the robbers told them to do . He saw Coleman move to the ground . Then the gunman
pointed the gun toward Miller . Miller said he moved around the side of a building . He
saw a police car go by without stopping . Miller called the police on his cell phone. At
trial, he identified the person with the gun as appellant, Anthony Warren.
Warren was indicted for robbery in the first degree and unlawful imprisonment in
the first degree as to Everett Hunter, and for wanton endangerment in the first degree
as to Arthur Coleman . Warren was subsequently indicted for being a persistent felony
offender in the second degree. Appellant was tried on May 17-19, 2005. The jury
found appellant guilty of the charged offenses . He was sentenced to a total of sixty-five
years imprisonment .
Appellant's first claim of error is that the trial court violated his right to a speedy
trial given the time that it took to try him on the charges in this case . Appellant filed a
pro se motion for speedy trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution .' The Court gave notice to the Commonwealth Attorney and
the Office of the Public Defender that appellant had filed the motion. The court gave
the Commonwealth a deadline within which to file a response if it intended to do so,
after which it would issue its ruling . The Commonwealth chose not to respond to the
motion, which was denied by the trial court on the morning of trial .
Initially, the Commonwealth challenges whether the motion to dismiss should
even be considered on appeal, since the motion was filed pro se and appellant was
represented by counsel in the trial court. However, the Commonwealth made no
objection below to the fact that the motion was pro se. Because the trial court decided
to rule on it, we will review the propriety of the denial of the motion .
Either a formal indictment or information, or else the actual restraints imposed by
arrest and holding to answer a criminal charge, engages the protections of the speedy
trial provision of the Sixth Amendment . Dillingham v. United States, 423 U.S . 64, 65,
96 S . Ct . 303, 304, 46 L. Ed . 2d 205, (1975). According to the record, appellant was
arrested on April 24, 2003, indicted on July 2, 2003, and arraigned July 15, 2003. The
court held a pre-trial hearing on August 25, 2003, at which it was determined that
discovery had not been completed . A pre-trial conference was held on October 23,
2003 . At this time a trial date of January 17, 2004, was noted by the trial court. On
1 Appellant asserted below and on appeal that his motion was not based on KRS 500.110, which provides a 180-day
statutory deadline for trial for a person lodged pursuant to a detainer who makes a request for disposition ofthe
charges . Appellant notes that there was not a detainer in this case, but according to the Department ofCorrections a
"hold" was placed on appellant.
Z A request to proceed pro. se or with counsel in a limited fashion must be timely and unequivocal . Deno v.
Commonwealth, 177 S.W.3d 753, 757-758 (Ky. 2005), citin Moore v. Commonwealth , 634 S.W.2d 426, 430 (Ky .
1982) . Appellant was not properly acting pro se, since he never made any attempt to waive his right to counsel or
limit counsel's role.
December 1, 2003, a suppression hearing was scheduled, but not held. As of that
date, the motion to suppress had not been filed . The motion to suppress was filed on
January 22, 2004. A hearing was held on that motion on April 22, 2004.
Trial was again scheduled to be held on May 19, 2004, but was continued
because the prosecutor was not available because he was in trial in another division of
circuit court . The record shows that a trial date was set for October 13, 2004. On the
day of trial, the defendant requested a continuance due to the presence of three
eyewitnesses unknown to the defendant. The prosecutor acknowledged that, due to
oversight, the information had not been provided to defense counsel . Trial dates were
set in January and February 2005, but trial did not take place then . Appellant's pro se
motion for dismissal for lack of a speedy trial was filed February 14, 2005. Appellant
was tried May 17-19, 2005 .
Appellant argues the court should have held a hearing on the motion for a
speedy trial, 3 and that this court should remand for a hearing or dismiss the indictment
and vacate the judgment. The inquiry into the speedy trial right must be triggered by a
presumptively prejudicial delay, and there is no bright line rule for determining what
length of a delay serves to trigger the inquiry . Gabow v. Commonwealth, 34 S.W .3d 63,
70 (Ky. 2000). "Presumptive prejudice" simply marks the point at which courts deem
the delay unreasonable enough to trigger the inquiry into the possible denial of the
speedy trial right. Doggett v. United States, 505 U .S. 647, 652, 112 S. Ct. 2686, 2691,
120 L. Ed . 2d 520 n. 1 (1992). The denial of the right to a speedy trial is not
determined according to a particular time period ; whether the right has been violated
must depend on the particular context of each case . McDonald v. Comm onwealth, 569
3 Appellant did not ask for a hearing below on his motion.
-5-
S .W .2d 134, 136-37 (Ky. 1978). We think that because this was a relatively
straightforward case, it does lend itself to a question why there was a two-year delay in
bringing it to trial . Cf. Bratcher v. Commonwealth, 151 S .W.3d 332 (Ky. 2004)
(eighteen month delay presumptively prejudicial). Therefore, finding presumptive
prejudice under the facts of the case, we make the inquiry into whether appellant's
speedy trial right was violated .
The four factors to be considered in resolving the issue of speedy trial are (1) the
length of the delay ; (2) the reasons for the delay ; (3) the defendant's assertion of the
right to a speedy trial; and (4) prejudice to the defendant. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U .S .
514, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 33 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1972); McDonald , 569 S .W .2d at 134 . The
delay in bringing this case to trial was a little over two years from the date of arrest to
the date of trial. The delay from the time of the motion to dismiss until trial, however,
was three months . The record shows that in that first year after appellant's arrest,
discovery was still being completed and a motion to suppress was at issue. Thus,
appellant contributed to and acquiesced in the first year of delay . Thereafter, the record
shows only two continuances being granted, one at the request of the Commonwealth
due to a conflict in another division of circuit court. The second was at the request of
appellant, but was necessitated by the negligence of the Commonwealth in preparing
its discovery. Thus, that fact should be weighed against the government, although less
heavily than would deliberate delay. Barker, 407 U .S . at 531, 92 S . Ct . at 2192 .
Appellant did not request a speedy trial until after this latter continuance was granted .
In terms of prejudice, he argues that since his parole was revoked upon his arrest on
the charges in this case, the pending charges adversely affected his chance to obtain
parole . He did not show, however, that his witnesses were unavailable or his defense
was otherwise prejudiced by the delay in bringing him to trial.
We believe the record shows that appellant was not zealously pursuing a speedy
trial . Appellant never filed a motion for a speedy trial, but only complained of the delay
prior to his filing a motion to dismiss. This court has stated that a motion to dismiss for
lack of speedy trial is not the same as a motion for a speedy trial since it does not
unequivocally put the trial court on notice that the defendant demands one. McDonald ,
569 S.W .2d at 137. Appellant has only shown that one delay was caused by the
negligence of the Commonwealth, and appellant at least acquiesced in the
continuance . Four months after that last continuance, appellantfiled his motion to
dismiss, and three months after that he was tried .
We do not think appellant has shown an unusual delay in bringing his case . In
particular, we do not agree that he has shown actual prejudice . Appellant's parole was
revoked by his arrest. Appellant's motion indicated that he had already received a two
year deferment from the Parole Board which was continuing at the time he filed his
motion. This suggests that he was not even eligible for release on parole until after the
trial was held in this case. There is nothing, however, to suggest that appellant would
not have remained in prison if his trial had been held earlier . Moreover, the
Commonwealth notes that appellant would likely have been subject to pretrial
incarceration even if his parole had not been revoked . We conclude from reviewing the
four Barker factors that appellant has not shown that his constitutional right to a speedy
trial was violated or that he should have been granted a hearing on his motion to
dismiss .
For his second allegation of error, appellant argues that testimony from the lead
detective in this case was irrelevant and prejudicial and deprived him of a fair trial. At
the end of the detective's testimony, the prosecutor asked the detective :
Commonwealth's Attorney : Are you confident after your lengthy
investigation that the right individual was arrested for this crime?
Det. Keeling : Absolutely.
Appellant's objection to the question was overruled . The prosecutor asked no further
questions .
Appellant argues that this testimony was not relevant, did not serve as rebuttal of
the questioning on cross-examination, and amounted to an expression of opinion that
appellant was guilty of the charges -- the ultimate issue for the jury's determination .
Appellant concedes that opinion evidence from an expert is allowed even if it embraces
the ultimate issue in a case, Stringer v. Commonwealth , 956 S.W.2d 883 (Ky. 1997),
but observes that the detective was not testifying as an expert on this matter. Appellant
thinks that the jury, however, could have drawn a conclusion mistakenly that the
detective, due to his training and experience, may have had specialized knowledge
about the guilt or innocence of appellant . For example, in Lamastus v. Commonwealth,
878 S.W .2d 32, 34 (Ky. App . 1994), it was determined that the officer's testimony which
repeated the facts as told to him by the victim lent credence to the victim's testimony
and prejudiced the jury in the victim's favor.
In Bussey v. Commonwealth , 797 S .W.2d 483 (Ky. 1990, we reversed in a
sexual abuse case in which an officer testified that he had concluded that some type of
misconduct must have occurred . We decided that the officer's testimony amounted to
a declaration that he believed the victim's story, and noted that such evidence had been
held to constitute reversible error. We reversed upon a finding that the officer's actions
were not at issue in the case .4 The disputed testimony in the case at bar was similar in
nature to that we disapproved of in Bussey and the cases cited therein . Moreover,
statements that directly name or implicate the defendant are considered to convey
more prejudice . LaMastus, 878 S .W .2d at 34. We agree with appellant that the
detective's testimony amounted to a declaration as to the defendant's guilt or
innocence, particularly since it was said to have been obtained after the detective's
"lengthy investigation ." We further conclude that the detective's thoughts as to whether
he arrested the perpetrator were irrelevant to the proceedings and inappropriate .
The Commonwealth agrees that the detective was not testifying as an expert, but
argues he was therefore permitted to give his opinion as a lay witness pursuant to KRE
701 . However, KRE 701 does not present an open forum for lay witnesses to express
any opinion . KRE 701 states that if a witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness'
testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those which are both
rationally based on the perceptions of the witness and helpful to an understanding of
the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. KRE 701 (a) and (b). The
opinion given by the witness, Detective Keeling, was not based on his own perceptions,
but based on his assessment of the perceptions of others as told to him . Thus, his
opinion was not permissible . In addition, his opinion on the issue of guilt or innocence
was not helpful to the jury. As we stated in Stringer, "Presumably, jurors do not need
assistance in the form of an expert's opinion that the defendant is guilty or not guilty ."
956 S.W.2d at 889-890 . Jurors also do not need that form of assistance from lay
4 In Bussev, the testimony of the officer was determined to constitute "investigative hearsay," which we declared was
not a recognized exception to the hearsay rule, and instructed that a law enforcement officer could only testify about
information furnished in an investigation where it tends to explain the action taken by the officer and the taking of
that action is an issue in the case. Id. at 486, citing Sanborn v. Commonwealth, 754 S.W.2d 534, 541 (1988).
witnesses . Therefore, the testimony from the detective does not satisfy the criteria for
admissible lay witness opinion under KRE 701 .
Nevertheless, having reviewed the whole of the evidence we conclude that this
evidence was harmless error under all the circumstances of the case . We agree that
Detective Keeling's testimony served improperly to reinforce Hunter's eyewitness
identification, after Hunter declared at trial that he could not be sure who he had seen .
However, there was a second eyewitness to the robbery who testified at trial
unequivocally that appellant was the perpetrator . Thus, the detective's opinion was not
vital to the identification of the robber at trial . In addition to the eyewitness testimony,
the jury could also consider the detective's testimony, prior to his opinion evidence, that
Hunter had been more certain in his identification of appellant when observing the
photo pack and that he identified appellant at that time as the person who robbed him .
We conclude that the opinion testimony of the detective, while irrelevant and unjustified,
was harmless under the totality of the evidence in this case.
Next, appellant objected to the wording of the instructions . Appellant objected
because the instructions were not phrased to say that the jury was to find the defendant
"not guilty" unless it found the elements of the offense, but rather the individual verdict
instructions stated that the jury was to find appellant "guilty under this Instruction if, and
only if, you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt all of the following.. . ."
Appellant argues that the form of the instructions did not make clear that the burden of
proof was with the Commonwealth or that the defendant was presumed innocent . The
Commonwealth responds that this allegation of error was not properly preserved for
review by specific objection . Although appellant challenged the language of the
instructions, he did not make the additional arguments below regarding the burden of
-1 0-
proof and presumption of innocence.
Appellant asserts that the defense's proposed language was proper because it
followed that used in 1 Cooper, Kentucky Instructions to Juries (Criminal), § § 2 .01 A and
2.01 D, pp. 67-68 (4th ed . 1999). However, that treatise recommends that the
instructions contain an "introductory instruction," setting forth the offense or offenses
under each count of the indictment. Cooper explains that such an introductory
instruction "serves two purposes: (1) to properly allocate the burden of proof at the
outset of the instructions ; and (2) to give the jury advance notice of the options with
which they will be presented by the substantive instructions ." The instructions in the
case at bar contained just such an introductory instruction . In addition, the jury was
instructed on the burden of proof and told that they should find the defendant not guilty
unless satisfied from the evidence alone and beyond a reasonable doubt that he was
guilty . Thus, we cannot agree that the instructions were lacking .
Appellant complains on appeal because the individual verdict forms were not
phrased in the same way as this introductory instruction, and argues that the variance
in language was confusing to the jury. However, jury instructions are to be read as a
whole . Bills v. Commonwealth, 851 S.W.2d 466 (Ky. 1993). We believe the jury was
certainly capable of understanding the instructions as a whole, without confusion .
Therefore, we affirm the instructions to the jury as they were given .
Finally, appellant argues that statements during the prosecutor's closing
argument were prejudicial and rendered the trial fundamentally unfair. At issue was the
following argument from the prosecutor when referring to appellant :
One of the things that's most eye opening about this case, to me, is the
influence, the terroristic influence that man has over the people who are in
this courtroom . You have to ask, "why?" I think it's a reasonable,
common sense extrapolation to say it's because he can come after me,
get somebody to come after me.
Appellant concedes that there was no contemporaneous objection to this argument . In
order to preserve error as to argument of counsel, there must be an objection at the
time of the argument. Sizemore v. Commonwealth , Ky., 844 S.W.2d 397 (1992)
overruled on other grounds, McGinnis v. Commonwealth , Ky., 875 S .W .2d 518 (1994) .
This Court has determined that we will reverse for prosecutorial misconduct in a closing
argument only if the misconduct is "flagrant" or if each of the following three conditions
is satisfied : (1) proof of defendant's guilt is not overwhelming ; (2) defense counsel
objected ; and (3) the trial court failed to cure the error with a sufficient admonishment to
the jury. Barnes v. Commonwealth , 91 S.W .3d 564, 568 (Ky. 2002). Since defense
counsel made no objection, appellant must convince this Court that any error was
"flagrant" to merit reversal .
Appellant argues that the prosecutor's statement was an unfounded attack on
his character, and an attempt to sway the jury not by the evidence but by consideration
of an inaccurate characterization . We do not find that there was any flagrant
impropriety in the argument since the depiction of appellant as having held a "terroristic
influence" over the witnesses at trial was based in the evidence at trial . In argument,
counsel may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence and set forth reasons why
the evidence supports their theory of the case. Wheeler v. Commonwealth , 121
S .W .3d 173, 180-181 (Ky. 2003). Reversal on the basis of the argument of counsel is
only justified when the alleged prosecutorial misconduct is so serious as to render the
trial fundamentally unfair. Id . at 189, citing Summitt v. Bordenkircher, 608 F .2d 247 (6th
Cir.1979).
- 1 2-
When the victim in the case, Everett Hunter, made a less positive identification
on the witness stand than he had for police, the Commonwealth questioned him as to
whether he feared testifying. While he asserted that he was not fearful, Hunter
expressed displeasure that his address was made public by his court appearances . In
addition, Arthur Coleman was expected to testify for the Commonwealth, but on the
witness stand he refused to answer questions about the robbery and would only say
that he was very uncomfortable about testifying . A third witness, who saw the robbery
but not the faces of the perpetrators, stated that she was frightened after having seen
the robbery and had moved out of the project . We regard the argument of counsel as
being a comment on the evidence and not an unfounded attack on appellant's
character . Considering the questions raised at trial as to whether the victim was
backing off of his identification and whether he and others were fearful of retaliation, the
prosecutor's characterization of appellant as having a "terroristic influence" over the
witnesses was based on the evidence and did not render the trial fundamentally unfair .
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm appellant's conviction in the Jefferson
Circuit Court.
Lambert, C.J. ; Cunningham, McAnulty, Minton, Schroder, and Scott, J.J., concur.
Noble, J ., dissents without opinion .
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT :
Daniel T. Goyette
Louisville Metro Public Defender
200 Civic Plaza
719 W . Jefferson Street
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
Bruce P. Hackett
Deputy Appellant Defender
200 Civic Plaza
719 W . Jefferson Street
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Gregory D. Stumbo
Attorney General of Kentucky
Room 118, Capitol Building
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Matthew Robert Krygiel
Assistant Attorney General
1024 Capital Center Drive
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601