Ronald Williams v. Commonwealth of Kentucky ( 2023 )

RENDERED: AUGUST 4, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2022-CA-0612-MR
RONALD WILLIAMS APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM GRAYSON CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE KENNETH H. GOFF, II, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 21-CR-00262
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
OPINION
VACATING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; GOODWINE AND TAYLOR,
JUDGES.
GOODWINE, JUDGE: Ronald Williams (“Williams”) appeals from a judgment
and sentence on a conditional plea of guilty of the Grayson Circuit Court.
Williams argues the circuit court improperly denied his motion to suppress on
which his plea is conditioned. After careful review, we vacate and remand.
On September 10, 2021, Williams was indicted on nine counts: (1)
first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance (methamphetamine); (2) first-
degree possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine); (3) first-degree
possession of a controlled substance (heroin); (4) second-degree hindering
prosecution or apprehension; (5) possession of drug paraphernalia; (6) prescription
controlled substance not in proper container; (7) third-degree trafficking in a
controlled substance; (8) possession of marijuana; (8) first-degree persistent felony
offender.
On January 21, 2022, Williams filed a two-sentence pro se motion for
a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 57 L. Ed.
2d 667 (1978). The motion stated: “Defendant Ronald Dale Williams Jr. comes
before the Grayson County Court to file a motion for a Franks Hearing.[1] This
motion is to be heard on the next available court date.” Record (“R.”) at 121.
Williams did not explain the basis for his motion.
On March 15, 2022, the circuit court held an evidentiary hearing on
the motion. The Commonwealth called Detective Jesse Townsend (“Det.
Townsend”) with the Greater Hardin County Narcotics Task Force. Det.
Townsend testified regarding the affidavit he prepared in seeking a search warrant
for Williams’ residence at Shrewsbury Road. The affidavit relied on statements
1
Franks outlines the process for proceeding on a motion to suppress “where the defendant
alleges that the issuing judge was presented with an affidavit containing false statements or
omitting material facts.” Minks v. Commonwealth, 427 S.W.3d 802, 809 (Ky. 2014).
-2-
provided to the police by a confidential informant (“CI”) who did not buy drugs
from Williams, an anonymous woman who previously resided with Williams, and
two women who reported their friend was missing and was at the Shrewsbury
Road address. All three statements included the same Shrewsbury Road address.
Williams also testified during the hearing. He denied holding women at his home
against their will, and he said the statements of the women were false. Williams
alleged the anonymous woman told police Williams had drugs in his home because
he kicked her out of his house. On cross-examination, Williams acknowledged he
lived at the Shrewsbury Road address when the search warrant was executed.
Williams’ counsel argued the affidavit did not contain sufficient
evidence to establish probable cause of narcotics trafficking and questioned the
credibility of all witness statements in the affidavit. The Commonwealth argued
the affidavit contained three instances of individuals saying there were drugs being
sold by Williams at the Shrewsbury Road location.
At the end of the hearing, the circuit court orally ruled that “the court
having listened to the testimony, the court is going to overrule the motion for
suppression.” Video Record (“VR”) 3/15/22 at 4:37:36-4:37:42. The circuit court
subsequently entered a written order denying Williams’ motion to suppress, but it
did not include any findings of fact or conclusions of law.
-3-
On April 12, 2022, Williams entered a conditional guilty plea,
preserving the suppression issue, in exchange for the Commonwealth’s
recommended total sentence of ten years for (1) first-degree trafficking in a
controlled substance (methamphetamine); (2) possession of drug paraphernalia; (3)
prescription controlled substance not in proper container; (4) third-degree
trafficking in a controlled substance; and (5) possession of marijuana. The
Commonwealth also agreed to dismiss (1) first-degree possession of a controlled
substance (methamphetamine); (2) first-degree possession of a controlled
substance (heroin); (3) second-degree hindering prosecution or apprehension; and
(4) first-degree persistent felony offender as a condition of the guilty plea. On
May 2, 2022, the circuit court accepted the Commonwealth’s recommendation and
sentenced Williams to ten years’ imprisonment. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Williams argues the circuit court erred in failing to: (1)
make any findings of fact and conclusions of law on the video record or in a
written order; or, alternatively, (2) find a lack of probable cause for the issuance of
the search warrant.
In reviewing a suppression issue, we apply a two-pronged approach:
“When reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we utilize a clear
error standard of review for factual findings and a de novo standard of review for
-4-
conclusions of law.” Greer v. Commonwealth, 514 S.W.3d 566, 568 (Ky. App.
2017) (quoting Jackson v. Commonwealth, 187 S.W.3d 300, 305 (Ky. 2006)).
First, Williams argues the circuit court erred in failing to make any
oral or written findings of fact and conclusions of law in denying his motion to
suppress. Williams failed to preserve this error, but supports his argument with
Harris v. Commonwealth, No. 2019-CA-000665-MR, 2020 WL 969138 (Ky. App.
Feb. 28, 2020).2 Conversely, the Commonwealth argues that because Williams
failed to present this argument to the trial court, we cannot review it.
Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (“CR”) 52.01 requires the trial
court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in its judgments:
In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with
an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specifically
and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and
render an appropriate judgment; and in granting or
refusing temporary injunctions or permanent injunctions
the court shall similarly set forth the findings of fact and
conclusions of law which constitute the grounds of its
action. Requests for findings are not necessary for
purposes of review except as provided in Rule 52.04.
Additionally, CR 52.04 provides:
A final judgment shall not be reversed or remanded
because of the failure of the trial court to make a finding
of fact on an issue essential to the judgment unless such
failure is brought to the attention of the trial court by a
2
We cite this unpublished opinion as persuasive, not binding, authority. See Kentucky Rules of
Appellate Procedure (“RAP”) 41(A).
-5-
written request for a finding on that issue or by a motion
pursuant to Rule 52.02.
In Commonwealth v. Smith, 542 S.W.3d 276 (Ky. 2018), the Supreme
Court of Kentucky explained that, generally, issues of fact must be preserved via a
CR 52.02 motion to be considered on appeal:
An appellate court may decide only those issues
which were fully presented to the trial court. Combs v.
Knott County Fiscal Court, 283 Ky. 456, 141 S.W.2d
859, 860 (1940). “[B]y requiring that trial counsel focus
the trial court’s attention on a purported error by
specifically identifying it, the rule makes sure that there
is a discrete decision for an appellate court to review.”
Fischer v. Fischer, 348 S.W.3d 582, 588 (Ky. 2011).
“The appellate court reviews for errors, and a nonruling
cannot be erroneous when the issue has not been
presented to the trial court for decision.” Hatton v.
Commonwealth, 409 S.W.2d 818, 819-820 (Ky. 1966)
(citation omitted). The Commonwealth’s failure to raise
this omission of what it regards as a critical finding of
fact in the trial court precludes appellate review of the
omission.
Id. at 285.
In Smith, the circuit court entered a suppression order with written
findings of fact and conclusions of law, but on appeal, the Commonwealth argued
“that the trial court’s findings of fact [were] . . . incomplete, arbitrary, and clearly
erroneous” because the trial court did not include the appellee’s parole status. Id.
However, the Commonwealth did not preserve the issue with a CR 52.02 motion,
so its omission precluded review. Id.
-6-
Here, the trial court failed to make any oral or written findings of fact,
and Williams failed to make a CR 52.02 motion to preserve the issue. This Court
encountered the same situation in Harris v. Commonwealth. There, this Court
distinguished Smith and opined:
RCr [Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure] 8.20(2) and
8.27 require a trial court to “state its essential findings on
the record” when considering a motion to suppress.
Smith, 542 S.W.3d at 285. Our standard of review
mandates that we review the circuit court’s findings and
uphold said findings only if there is substantial evidence
in the record to support them. Turley, 399 S.W.3d at
417. Without the required findings of fact, we cannot
conduct a meaningful review of the issues presented.
Commonwealth v. Neal, 84 S.W.3d 920, 925 (Ky. App.
2002).
Harris, 2020 WL 969138, at *2.
Though Harris is unpublished, we find it persuasive and distinguish
the present case from Smith. Though, generally, we cannot review unpreserved
errors, we also cannot address the merits of an appeal when “[t]here is nothing in
the record, oral or written, to indicate which facts the circuit court believed
supported its ruling.” Harris, 2020 WL 969138, at *3. Thus, we hold the trial
court erred in entering a suppression order lacking findings of fact.
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the Grayson Circuit Court’s
suppression order and remand with instructions to enter a new order containing
findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by CR 52.01.
-7-
THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE, CONCURS.
TAYLOR, JUDGE, CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Karen Shuff Maurer Daniel Cameron
Frankfort, Kentucky Attorney General of Kentucky
Thomas A. Van De Rostyne
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
-8-