Michael Knights v. Commonwealth of Kentucky ( 2022 )

RENDERED: AUGUST 5, 2022; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2020-CA-1095-MR
MICHAEL KNIGHTS APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE SUSAN SCHULTZ GIBSON, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 09-CR-000199-001
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: DIXON, LAMBERT, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.
DIXON, JUDGE: Michael Knights, pro se, appeals from the order of the Jefferson
Circuit Court, entered on August 5, 2020, denying his motion to amend his prison
sentence pursuant to CR1 60.02(e) and CR 60.02(f). Following review of the
record, briefs, and law, we affirm.
1
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 22, 2009, Knights was indicted on two counts of murder,
two counts of tampering with physical evidence, one count of first-degree robbery,
and one count of first-degree burglary. On February 9, 2009, the Commonwealth
filed a notice of aggravating circumstances, indicating its intent to prosecute the
murder counts as capital offenses. On November 20, 2009, having pled guilty to
the above-mentioned charges, Knights was sentenced to a total term of life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 25 years.
On August 17, 2012, Knights moved the trial court to vacate his
judgment of conviction and sentence pursuant to RCr2 11.42. In his motion,
Knights contended his trial counsel was ineffective for “failing to conduct an
adequate investigation and failure to make adequate preparation prior to trial.
Therefore, forcing and/or coercing [Knights] into entering into and taking an
unintelligent and involuntary plea agreement.” (emphasis omitted). Knights
further alleged his counsel was ineffective by denying his request to move the trial
court for competency and criminal responsibility evaluations.
On November 25, 2014, the trial court denied Knights’ motion,
finding his guilty plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. On
2
Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure.
-2-
December 9, 2014, Knights appealed that order. On March 14, 2016, his appeal
was dismissed for failure to timely file a brief.
On July 24, 2020, Knights moved the trial court to amend his sentence
pursuant to CR 60.02(e) and CR 60.02(f), alleging his sentence “resulted from an
involuntary, unknowing, unintelligent guilty plea that counsel, his counsel coerced
him into, without even investigating relevant defenses of any kind.” Knights
further asserted he should have undergone a psychological evaluation. On August
5, 2020, the trial court denied Knights’ motion, finding Knights’ claims “are
refuted by the record, that he had the opportunity to raise this issue during his 2012
RCr 11.42 motion and did not, and that an eleven-year delay in raising this issue is
unreasonable.” This appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews orders on CR 60.02 motions for abuse of
discretion. White v. Commonwealth, 32 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Ky. App. 2000) (citation
omitted). “The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge’s decision was
arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Foley v.
Commonwealth, 425 S.W.3d 880, 886 (Ky. 2014) (citation omitted).
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Knights argues that failure to move for relief under RCr
11.42 does not foreclose consideration of a guilty plea under CR 60.02, citing
-3-
Wesselman v. Seabold, 834 F.2d 99 (6th Cir. 1987). However, Wesselman plainly
states “[t]he language of RCr 11.42 forecloses the defendant from raising any
questions under CR 60.02 which are ‘issues that could reasonably have been
presented’ by RCr 11.42 proceedings.” Id. at 102 (quoting Gross v.
Commonwealth, 648 S.W.2d 853, 857 (Ky. 1983)).
In the case herein, Knights presented in his RCr 11.42 motion the
arguments made in his CR 60.02 motion. Thus, the trial court did not err in
denying Knights’ CR 60.02 motion.3
CONCLUSION
Therefore, and for the foregoing reasons, the order of the Jefferson
Circuit Court is AFFIRMED.
ALL CONCUR.
3
We may affirm a lower court on any grounds supported by the record. Commonwealth v.
Mitchell, 610 S.W.3d 263, 271 (Ky. 2020). “If an appellate court is aware of a reason to affirm
the lower court’s decision, it must do so, even if on different grounds.” Mark D. Dean, P.S.C. v.
Commonwealth Bank & Tr. Co., 434 S.W.3d 489, 496 (Ky. 2014). Therefore, we must conclude
that the trial court properly dismissed these claims.
-4-
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Michael Knights, pro se Daniel Cameron
Eddyville, Kentucky Attorney General of Kentucky
Jenny L. Sanders
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
-5-