Dickerson v. Commonwealth

278 S.W.3d 145 (Ky. 2009) · Supreme Court of Kentucky · February 19, 2009 · No. 2008-SC-000074-MR

Summary

The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed Robert Dickerson's convictions entered after a conditional guilty plea following the reversal of his original convictions. The court held that Dickerson's right to a speedy trial was not violated because, despite a presumptively prejudicial delay, he failed to establish actual prejudice. The court also rejected his claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness, concluding that objective information justified the Commonwealth's additional firearm charges.

Court
Supreme Court of Kentucky
Writing for the Court
Chief Justice Minton; Minton
Jurisdiction
Kentucky
Decision date
February 19, 2009
Docket number
2008-SC-000074-MR
Procedural posture
Dickerson appealed as a matter of right from convictions entered after he entered a conditional guilty plea, arguing that the delay after reversal of his original convictions violated his speedy-trial right and that the Commonwealth engaged in prosecutorial vindictiveness by obtaining a new indictment with additional firearm charges.
Standard of review
The court applied the four-factor Barker v. Wingo framework to the speedy-trial claim and reviewed the prosecutorial-vindictiveness claim under the actual- or presumed-vindictiveness framework. Preservation was evaluated under Kentucky law governing conditional guilty pleas.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Robert Dickerson v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

speedy trialprosecutorial misconductcriminal procedurepreservation of errorappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedureconstitutional criminal procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Dickerson's conditional guilty plea sufficiently preserved his speedy-trial and prosecutorial-vindictiveness claims for appellate review.
  2. Whether the approximately twenty-three-month delay between reversal of the original convictions and Dickerson's guilty plea violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial.
  3. Whether the Commonwealth's post-reversal indictment charging two additional firearm-possession counts constituted prosecutorial vindictiveness.

Holdings

  1. Issues are preserved for appellate review after a conditional guilty plea when they concern an indictment that fails to charge an offense or a manifestly infirm sentence, are expressly reserved in the plea documents or colloquy, or were brought to the trial court's attention before the plea even if not specifically repeated in the plea documents or colloquy.
  2. The approximately twenty-three-month delay was presumptively prejudicial, and some reasons for the delay weighed slightly in Dickerson's favor, but the delay did not violate the speedy-trial right because Dickerson failed to establish actual prejudice.
  3. The Commonwealth did not engage in prosecutorial vindictiveness by obtaining a new indictment charging two additional firearm-possession offenses after reversal of Dickerson's original convictions.

Key quotations

Synthesizing our precedent in this area leads to the conclusion that we will consider issues on appeal from a conditional guilty plea only if those issues: (1) involve a claim that the indictment did not charge an offense or the sentence imposed by the trial court was manifestly infirm, or (2) the issues upon which appellate review are sought were expressly set forth in the conditional plea documents or in a colloquy with the trial court, or (3) if the issues upon which appellate review is sought were brought to the trial court's attention before the entry of the conditional guilty plea even if the issues are not specifically reiterated in the guilty plea documents or plea colloquy. (149)
Although the delay in this case gives rise to presumptive prejudice, Dickerson has failed to show the delay caused actual prejudice. (152)
So even assuming solely for the purposes of argument that Dickerson has made a prima facie showing of prosecutorial vindictiveness, the Commonwealth has successfully rebutted that presumption that the new charges against Dickerson were a result of prosecutorial vindictiveness by showing that "there exists objective information in the record to justify the ... additional charges." (153)

Factual background

After the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed Dickerson's original convictions, the case proceeded on remand for approximately twenty-three months before Dickerson entered a conditional guilty plea. Several continuances resulted from defense requests to obtain discovery, including grand-jury tapes, although some delay was attributable to the Commonwealth's discovery failures and changes in court and prosecutor officeholders. In April 2007, the Commonwealth obtained a new indictment charging two additional firearm-possession counts after Dickerson moved to exclude evidence concerning a shotgun and pistol that had been involved in the earlier trial. Dickerson ultimately pleaded guilty and received consecutive sentences totaling twenty-five years.

Procedural history

Dickerson's original convictions were reversed by the Kentucky Supreme Court in October 2005 because of numerous errors. On remand, the proceedings were continued several times, and the Commonwealth obtained a new indictment in April 2007 charging two additional counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Dickerson entered a conditional guilty plea in September 2007 to criminal abuse and firearm-possession charges and received an aggregate twenty-five-year sentence. The Supreme Court of Kentucky held that the appellate issues were sufficiently preserved, rejected both constitutional claims, and affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…