George Ellis Wade v. Commonwealth of Kentucky ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                    RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 11, 2020; 10:00 A.M.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
    Commonwealth of Kentucky
    Court of Appeals
    NO. 2017-CA-001845-MR
    GEORGE ELLIS WADE                                                    APPELLANT
    APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
    v.                    HONORABLE OLU A. STEVENS, JUDGE
    ACTION NO. 84-CR-001549-002
    COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                                 APPELLEE
    OPINION
    AFFIRMING
    ** ** ** ** **
    BEFORE: CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE; DIXON AND JONES, JUDGES.
    JONES, JUDGE: George Ellis Wade, pro se, appeals from the Jefferson Circuit
    Court’s order denying his motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to CR1 60.02, CR
    60.01, and RCr2 10.26. We affirm the circuit court’s denial of relief.
    1
    Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
    2
    Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure.
    In 1984, Wade and his codefendant, Victor Taylor, were charged with
    the murders of two high school students in Jefferson County. The relevant facts of
    the case were summarized by the Kentucky Supreme Court in its 1990 opinion in
    Taylor’s direct appeal:
    The prosecution presented evidence in the form of a
    statement by Wade which indicated that he and Taylor
    kidnapped and robbed the two students who had gotten
    lost on their way to a football game. The young men had
    stopped at a fast food restaurant to ask directions when
    they were confronted by Taylor and Wade. Other
    witnesses indicated that Taylor had a gun and forced the
    victims to get into their car and drive away. Wade in his
    statement said that he and Taylor robbed the boys and
    that he had removed both boys’ trousers, bound their
    ankles and gagged them in a Louisville alley. Wade’s
    statement was that Taylor decided to kill the two victims
    because he was afraid they would identify them. Wade
    said he waited on a nearby street while Taylor shot both
    boys in the head.
    Taylor v. Commonwealth, 
    821 S.W.2d 72
    , 73-74 (Ky. 1990), overruled by St. Clair
    v. Roark, 
    10 S.W.3d 482
    (Ky. 1999). Due to the extensive publicity surrounding
    the case, Wade’s trial was moved to Fayette County,3 where he was convicted of
    two counts each of murder, kidnapping, and first-degree robbery. Wade was
    thereafter sentenced to life imprisonment.
    3
    Because Wade’s case was moved to Fayette County, his judgment of conviction has two case
    numbers: Jefferson Circuit No. 84-CR-001549-002, and Fayette Circuit No. 85-CR-00334-002.
    The caption of the appeal sub judice uses the Jefferson Circuit case number because Wade is
    appealing from the Jefferson Circuit Court’s order denying him relief from his sentence.
    -2-
    Wade filed a timely notice of appeal from his convictions, but he
    subsequently moved to dismiss the appeal. The Kentucky Supreme Court granted
    his motion and dismissed his appeal with prejudice. In 1993, Wade, pro se, moved
    the Jefferson Circuit Court for relief under RCr 11.42, arguing he received
    ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied relief, and we affirmed.4
    In 2000, Wade moved the Kentucky Supreme Court to reinstate his direct appeal,
    and the Supreme Court denied his motion by order.5 Wade then moved this Court
    for a belated appeal, which we denied in 2002.6
    Thereafter, once again acting without the assistance of counsel, Wade
    moved the circuit court to vacate his sentence under CR 60.02, CR 60.01, and RCr
    10.26, arguing the evidence at trial showed he was actually innocent of the crimes
    for which he was convicted and the instructions at trial were erroneous. On July
    14, 2017, the circuit court denied the motion without a hearing, finding Wade’s
    claims were not cognizable under CR 60.02, CR 60.01, or RCr 10.26. This appeal
    followed.7
    4
    Wade v. Commonwealth, No. 1994-CA-001034-MR (Ky. App. Jul. 19, 1996).
    5
    Wade v. Commonwealth, No. 2000-SC-001034-MR (Ky. Dec. 14, 2000).
    6
    Wade v. Commonwealth, No. 2002-CA-000184-MR (Ky. App. Mar. 18, 2002).
    7
    Wade filed his notice of appeal on September 27, 2017; however, Wade’s appellant brief was
    not filed until well over two years later on April 22, 2020, and his appeal was not assigned to this
    panel for a final decision until July 21, 2020. The delay was largely the product of Wade’s own
    -3-
    “We review the denial of a CR 60.02 motion for an abuse of
    discretion.” Diaz v. Commonwealth, 
    479 S.W.3d 90
    , 92 (Ky. App. 2015) (citing
    Partin v. Commonwealth, 
    337 S.W.3d 639
    , 640 (Ky. App. 2010)). “The test for
    abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge’s decision was arbitrary,
    unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Commonwealth v.
    English, 
    993 S.W.2d 941
    , 945 (Ky. 1999). “The burden of proof in a CR 60.02
    proceeding falls squarely on the movant to affirmatively allege facts which, if true,
    justify vacating the judgment and further allege special circumstances that justify
    CR 60.02 relief.” Foley v. Commonwealth, 
    425 S.W.3d 880
    , 885 (Ky. 2014)
    (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]e will affirm the lower
    court’s decision unless there is a showing of some ‘flagrant miscarriage of
    justice.’”
    Id. at 886
    (quoting Gross v. Commonwealth, 
    648 S.W.2d 853
    , 858 (Ky.
    1983)).
    Wade presents three interrelated arguments on appeal. First, he
    contends the circuit court should have granted relief because the jury’s verdict was
    inconsistent with the facts presented at trial. Second, Wade contends he suffered
    from defective jury instructions at trial. Third, he contends his life sentences were
    void because the sentences were “not provided for by law.” (Appellant’s Brief at
    2.) We will briefly consider each of Wade’s arguments in turn.
    actions in filing numerous procedural motions with this Court as well as his failure to respond to
    orders of this Court in a timely manner.
    -4-
    For Wade’s first two arguments, the Commonwealth argues the circuit
    court correctly denied relief because Wade’s claims should have been raised in a
    direct appeal or by his motion pursuant to RCr 11.42; therefore, his instant CR
    60.02 motion is procedurally barred. We agree and hold Wade has presented no
    grounds for extraordinary relief cognizable under CR 60.02. “CR 60.02 is not a
    separate avenue of appeal to be pursued in addition to other remedies, but is
    available only to raise issues which cannot be raised in other proceedings.”
    McQueen v. Commonwealth, 
    948 S.W.2d 415
    , 416 (Ky. 1997). Wade’s claims
    regarding the circumstances of his trial, including evidentiary issues and jury
    instruction issues, were known to him or should have been known to him at
    sentencing or shortly thereafter. “CR 60.02 is not intended to provide relief for
    grounds that could be attacked through direct appeals or collateral motions such as
    grounds under RCr 11.42.” Meece v. Commonwealth, 
    529 S.W.3d 281
    , 285 (Ky.
    2017).
    For Wade’s third argument, the Commonwealth admits unauthorized
    sentences are unlawful and the issue may be raised at any time, citing Phon v.
    Commonwealth, 
    545 S.W.3d 284
    , 301-02 (Ky. 2018). However, the
    Commonwealth correctly points out that murder is a capital offense under KRS8
    507.020 and punishable by a life sentence pursuant to KRS 532.030. Furthermore,
    8
    Kentucky Revised Statutes.
    -5-
    these laws were in effect at the time Wade was convicted, approximately thirty-
    five years ago. Because his sentence was authorized by statutes in effect at the
    time of his conviction, Wade’s argument regarding his purportedly unlawful
    sentence lacks merit.
    Finally, for the sake of completeness, we will note here that the circuit
    court succinctly and correctly dismissed Wade’s claims within the contexts of CR
    60.01 and RCr 10.26. CR 60.01 allows for the correction of clerical mistakes in
    the judgment, which is not relevant to Wade’s underlying substantive arguments.
    See Hutson v. Commonwealth, 
    215 S.W.3d 708
    , 717 (Ky. App. 2006). Similarly,
    RCr 10.26, the criminal rule describing palpable error review, is inapplicable to
    Wade’s arguments here. “Neither RCr 10.26 nor its language has application when
    reviewing a decision under CR 60.02[.]” Stoker v. Commonwealth, 
    289 S.W.3d 592
    , 598 (Ky. App. 2009).
    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Jefferson Circuit Court’s
    order denying relief pursuant to CR 60.02.
    ALL CONCUR.
    -6-
    BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:    BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
    George E. Wade, pro se   Daniel Cameron
    La Grange, Kentucky      Attorney General of Kentucky
    James C. Shackelford
    Assistant Attorney General
    Frankfort, Kentucky
    -7-