Anu White v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
This text of Anu White v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Anu White v. Commonwealth of Kentucky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
RENDERED: AUGUST 25, 2023; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2022-CA-0179-MR
ANU WHITE APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE MARY M. SHAW, JUDGE ACTION NOS. 14-CR-003257 AND 14-CR-003257-004
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
OPINION AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: COMBS, MCNEILL, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.
MCNEILL, JUDGE: In 2017, Appellant, Anu White (White), was convicted of
first-degree robbery (complicity). He was found not guilty of murder. Prior to his
sentencing phase of trial, White entered a conditional plea, wherein he agreed to
waive his right to a jury-sentencing phase, and his right to appeal any trial issues.
The Commonwealth recommended a sentence of twelve years’ imprisonment,
which was imposed by the trial court. Nearly three years later, White filed a pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to RCr1 11.42. The
primary allegation here is that he pleaded guilty because of ineffective assistance
of counsel. The court denied White’s request for RCr 11.42 relief. He appeals to
this Court as a matter of right. For the following reasons, we affirm.
A successful petition for relief under RCr 11.42 for ineffective
assistance of counsel must survive the twin prongs of “performance” and
“prejudice” provided in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984);
accord Gall v. Commonwealth, 702 S.W.2d 37, 39-40 (Ky. 1985). As to the
second Strickland prong, the defendant has the duty to “affirmatively prove
prejudice.” Id. at 693. In the context of a guilty plea:
A conclusory allegation to the effect that absent the error the movant would have insisted upon a trial is not enough. The movant must allege facts that, if proven, would support a conclusion that the decision to reject the plea bargain and go to trial would have been rational, e.g., valid defenses, a pending suppression motion that could undermine the prosecution’s case, or the realistic potential for a lower sentence.
Stiger v. Commonwealth, 381 S.W.3d 230, 237 (Ky. 2012) (citations and footnote
omitted).
[W]hen reviewing a trial court’s findings of fact following an RCr 11.42 evidentiary hearing, an appellate court utilizes the clearly erroneous standard set forth in Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 52.01. Findings of fact are not clearly erroneous if supported by
1 Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure.
-2- substantial evidence. Even though claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are subject to de novo review, a reviewing court should defer to the determination of facts made by the trial judge.
Saylor v. Commonwealth, 357 S.W.3d 567, 570-71 (Ky. App. 2012) (citations
omitted). With these standards in mind, we now return to the record and
arguments at issue here.
White contends that the jury was presented with an erroneous
facilitation to robbery instruction. The Commonwealth does not dispute this. But
for this erroneous instruction, White claims that he would not have accepted the
sentencing plea agreement. However, in denying White’s RCr 11.42 petition, the
circuit court correctly concluded that the jury did not consider the tendered
facilitation instruction, because it found White guilty under the preceding
complicity instruction. White does not take issue with the complicity instruction,
which concluded with the admonition, “[I]f you do not find Anu White guilty
under this instruction, proceed to Instruction 2a [facilitation].” Therefore, because
White cannot “affirmatively prove prejudice” pursuant to Strickland, we need not
address trial counsel’s “performance.” Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
ALL CONCUR.
-3- BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Jacquelyn Bryant-Hayes Daniel Cameron LaGrange, Kentucky Attorney General of Kentucky
REPLY BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Thomas A. Van De Rostyne Assistant Attorney General Kara Stinson Lewis Frankfort, Kentucky LaGrange, Kentucky
-4-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Anu White v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anu-white-v-commonwealth-of-kentucky-kyctapp-2023.