Jacob Fulkerson v. Commonwealth of Kentucky ( 2022 )

RENDERED: NOVEMBER 10, 2022; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2021-CA-0686-MR
JACOB FULKERSON APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM NELSON CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE CHARLES C. SIMMS, III, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 19-CR-00341
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE; COMBS AND DIXON, JUDGES.
DIXON, JUDGE: Jacob Fulkerson appeals the order of the Nelson Circuit Court,
entered June 7, 2021, denying his motion for disposition as a juvenile and
sentencing him as a youthful offender to five years’ imprisonment. After careful
review of the record, briefs, and law, we affirm.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In May 2019, Fulkerson was arrested and charged with the murder of
Chris Metzger,1 a capital offense, among other lesser charges. Because Fulkerson
was 15 years old, the proceedings against him began in juvenile court. However,
in August 2019, after a hearing wherein the juvenile court determined Fulkerson
was charged with a capital offense and a firearm had been used in the commission
of that offense, the case was transferred to circuit court for youthful offender
proceedings in accordance with KRS 635.020(2) and (4) (2019).2 On May 4, 2021,
Fulkerson pled guilty to a reduced charge of reckless homicide,3 a Class D felony.
The plea agreement and Fulkerson’s plea colloquy were silent as to the factual
predicate underlying the conviction.
After entry of the plea, Fulkerson motioned the court for disposition
as a juvenile. Fulkerson argued that, because he was convicted of only a Class D
felony and there was no evidence in the record of his use of a firearm, he no longer
qualified for transfer, and thus, he was exempt from sentencing as a youthful
offender pursuant to KRS 640.040(4). Citing a statement in the presentence
investigation report that “a witness . . . saw the defendant shoot the victim in the
1
Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 507.020.
2
Effective June 29, 2021, after Fulkerson was sentenced, KRS 635.020 and KRS 640.010 were
amended modifying the transfer procedure for felonies involving the use of a firearm.
3
KRS 507.050.
-2-
chest[,]” the circuit court denied the motion and sentenced Fulkerson in accordance
with the plea offer to five years to serve. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
Generally, when a child commits an offense that would be a crime if
committed by an adult, the act is considered a public offense. See KRS
600.020(51). Public offenses are adjudicated by the juvenile session of the district
court or the family division of the circuit court. KRS 610.010. The dispositional
alternatives for public offenses are significantly more lenient than the sentencing
ranges for criminal convictions. See KRS 635.060 and 532.060. Additionally, an
adjudication for a public offense does not impose the same collateral consequences
as a criminal conviction. KRS 635.040.
As an exception to this general rule, youthful offenders are children
who, due to their age and the nature of their offenses, are prosecuted and sentenced
as if they were adults. Chipman v. Commonwealth, 313 S.W.3d 95, 97 (Ky. 2010);
see also KRS 600.020(72), 635.020(4), and 640.030. Kentucky courts have
recognized that “the legislature set a high bar for children to be deemed youthful
offenders.” Chipman, 313 S.W.3d at 97.
Thus, under the statutory scheme, KRS 635.010-.120 &
640.010-.120, two steps are required before a child will
be sentenced as a youthful offender. First, the child must
qualify for transfer to circuit court and prosecution as a
youthful offender by falling under one of the youthful
offender provisions in KRS 635.020(2)-(7). Then, upon
-3-
conviction in the circuit court, the child may be
sentenced as a youthful offender only if he is not
“exempt” under KRS 640.040(4). This means that the
child’s ultimate conviction must continue to qualify him
as a youthful offender under one of the provisions in
KRS 635.020(2)-(7). See Canter v. Commonwealth, 843
S.W.2d 330, 331-32 (Ky. 1992). As a result, to be
properly sentenced as an adult, a child must qualify as a
youthful offender both for prosecution and for
sentencing. Id.Id.
Fulkerson does not challenge the district court’s order transferring the
matter; rather, the issue is whether he still qualified as a youthful offender at
sentencing. Since Fulkerson pled guilty to a Class D felony and did not expressly
waive his right to juvenile disposition, KRS 635.020(4) is the only viable basis for
his sentence. KRS 635.020(4) states that “[i]f a child charged with a felony in
which a firearm, whether functional or not, was used in the commission of the
offense had attained the age of fourteen (14) years at the time of the commission of
the alleged offense,” the child shall be transferred for trial as an adult, and if
convicted, subject to the same penalties. When, like here, “the use of a firearm is
not self-evident from the conviction, it must appear somewhere from the record.”
Chipman, 313 S.W.3d at 99.
Because both his plea agreement and the colloquy were silent as to
any facts, Fulkerson argues the court committed reversible error in sentencing him
as a youthful offender. Disagreeing that the record contains no evidence, the
-4-
Commonwealth refers this Court to (1) testimony from the transfer hearing before
the district court and (2) the indictment, which the Commonwealth asserts
explicitly stated that a pistol was used to kill Metzger.
We reject the Commonwealth’s latter claim for multiple reasons.
First, because Fulkerson pled guilty to an amended charge, the indictment is
irrelevant to this matter. Second, the Commonwealth’s claim is not supported by
the record. Count 1 of the indictment merely reads that Fulkerson “committed the
offense of Wanton Murder by wantonly engaging in conduct which created a grave
risk of death to Christopher Metzger and thereby causing [his] death[,]” and makes
no mention of a pistol or, much less, Fulkerson’s use thereof. Third, and most
importantly, the indictment is not evidence. Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463,
466-67, 63 S. Ct. 1241, 1244, 87 L. Ed. 1519 (1943); see also RCr4 9.56(1).5
Consequently, we turn to the Commonwealth’s contention that
testimonial evidence6 from Detective (Det.) Smith and Andrew Nalley provided
4
Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure.
5
The circuit court’s reliance upon the presentence investigation report, which simply quoted the
underlying juvenile petition, is likewise erroneous. Notwithstanding this fact, our review is not
complete as “it is well-settled that an appellate court may affirm a lower court for any reason
supported by the record.” McCloud v. Commonwealth, 286 S.W.3d 780, 786 n.19 (Ky. 2009)
(citing Kentucky Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gray, 814 S.W.2d 928, 930 (Ky. App. 1991)).
6
We note that in its appellee brief, the Commonwealth also offered statements made by
Fulkerson and an alleged witness; however, because the former was suppressed and the latter
was never admitted as evidence, neither was properly before the court. Accordingly, we have
wholly disregarded these references.
-5-
during the transfer hearing supports the circuit court’s decision. Det. Smith
testified as to a statement from Kaylea Lowe who was present at the apartment
where the incident occurred. Per Det. Smith, Fulkerson told Lowe he shot
Metzger, explaining that he and Metzger had been playing with the gun, Metzger
grabbed the gun, and it went off. Nalley, who was also present at the scene,
testified that Fulkerson and Metzger were engaged in a disagreement about
marijuana when he saw Metzger hand the gun grip first with the barrel pointed at
his own chest to Fulkerson. Nalley looked away, and two seconds later he heard a
gunshot.
In reply, Fulkerson concedes he was in possession of, or armed with, a
firearm and that the firearm ultimately discharged killing Metzger. Nevertheless,
citing Chipman, he disputes that the evidence establishes his use of the firearm as
opposed to an accidental shooting.
In Chipman, the only evidence7 offered to support youthful offender
sentencing under the use of a firearm provision was Chipman’s agreement during
the plea colloquy that “one of the [adults] accompanying her was carrying a .25
caliber pistol[.]” 313 S.W.3d 95 at 100 (internal quotation marks omitted). In
concluding the evidence was insufficient, the court stressed that the “use of a
7
The Commonwealth also relied upon statements to the circuit court about its theory of the case,
but Chipman was clear that this was not evidence. 313 S.W.3d at 100-01.
-6-
firearm” requires more than mere possession, and more importantly, the child must
personally use or be complicit in the firearm’s use, which Chipman was not. Id. at
100-01.
The facts herein are readily distinguishable from Chipman, and this
case is more akin to Brown v. Commonwealth, No. 2010-CA-002293-MR, 2012
WL 876748 (Ky. App. Mar. 16, 2012).8 Like Fulkerson, after being transferred for
youthful offender proceedings and entering a plea of guilty, Brown argued the
evidence did not demonstrate that he used a firearm within the meaning of KRS
635.020(4) during his commission of first-degree wanton endangerment, and he
motioned for disposition as a juvenile. Brown, 2012 WL 876748 at *1-2. This
Court affirmed Brown’s sentence as a youthful offender holding that evidence
Brown had possessed a loaded handgun which discharged during his struggle with
police constituted “use” of a firearm. Id. at *2.
Here, Fulkerson pled guilty to reckless homicide, an offense
predicated on a state of mind less culpable than the wanton conduct9 at issue in
8
Pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 76.28(4)(c), an unpublished opinion
rendered after January 1, 2003, may be cited for consideration where there is no published
authority that would adequately address the issue at bar.
9
Reckless homicide merely requires that Fulkerson failed to perceive a substantial and
unjustifiable risk, which a reasonable person would have observed, that his actions would result
in Metzger’s death. See KRS 501.020(4). In contrast, wanton murder necessitates that
Fulkerson knew his actions created a risk of Metzger’s death and consciously disregarded it. See
Id. at (3).
-7-
Brown; yet, the evidence similarly demonstrates that Fulkerson, a juvenile actively
using alcohol and marijuana, possessed a loaded firearm and was playing with said
firearm when it discharged causing Metzger’s death. Under these facts, we have
no difficulty concluding Fulkerson used a firearm within the meaning of KRS
635.020(4), and thus, the court did not err in sentencing Fulkerson as a youthful
offender.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, and for the foregoing reasons, the order of the Nelson
Circuit Court is AFFIRMED.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Laura A. Karem Daniel Cameron
Frankfort, Kentucky Attorney General of Kentucky
Robert Baldridge
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
-8-