Bass Webb v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky
• Decided: November 8, 2023
• Docket: 2022 CA 000295
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

RENDERED: NOVEMBER 9, 2023; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

NO. 2022-CA-0295-MR

BASS WEBB APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE DAVID A. BARBER, JUDGE ACTION NO. 10-CR-00062

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE

OPINION AFFIRMING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: ACREE, DIXON, AND JONES, JUDGES.

ACREE, JUDGE: Appellant, Bass Webb, appeals the Montgomery Circuit Court’s

Order denying his RCr1 11.42 motion. In denying this motion, the circuit court did

not conduct a hearing, which Webb believes to be error. We disagree and affirm.

1 Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure. In late 2003, Sabrina Vaughn died. Years later, Jonathan French and

others admitted they assisted Webb – Vaughn’s then-paramour and French’s

cousin – in burying her body. In April 2017, a jury convicted Webb of murdering

Vaughn. See Webb v. Commonwealth, No. 2017-SC-000327-MR, 2018 WL

4628508, at *1 (Ky. Sep. 27, 2018). On direct appeal, the Kentucky Supreme

Court affirmed the conviction. Id.2

Three years later, on October 18, 2021, Webb filed a RCr 11.423

motion. It was just days before finality of his judgment of conviction that would

cut off his right to do so. RCr 11.42(10)(a). In that motion, Webb argued Jonathan

French – a key witness to the Commonwealth’s case against him – perjured

himself on the stand, and the Commonwealth failed to correct the perjured

testimony. The allegation of perjury centered on whether the Commonwealth had

given French a deal in exchange for his testimony against Webb.

Perjured testimony is not a basis for collaterally attacking a jury

verdict in an RCr 11.42 proceeding. Fields v. Commonwealth, 408 S.W.2d 638,

639 (Ky. 1966). In Fields, as here, “The main ground . . . sought [for] relief was

2 The Supreme Court summarizes the key facts of the murder and Webb’s conviction in Webb v. Commonwealth, No. 2017-SC-000327-MR, 2018 WL 4628508, at *1-2 (Ky. Sep. 27, 2018). 3 Pursuant to RCr 11.42(1): “A prisoner in custody under sentence or a defendant on probation, parole or conditional discharge who claims a right to be released on the ground that the sentence is subject to collateral attack may at any time proceed directly by motion in the court that imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct it.”

-2- that he was convicted on perjured testimony. . . . The asserted ground is not one on

which relief is available under RCr 11.42.” Id. The rule pronounced in Fields was

reaffirmed in Hendrickson v. Commonwealth, 450 S.W.2d 234 (Ky. 1970). See

also Bell v. Commonwealth, 395 S.W.2d 784, 785 (Ky. 1965) (Even if a trial

witness “will now testify that he made a false statement . . . [this] is not a ground

for relief under RCr 11.42.”).

More recently, in the context of a charge of prosecutorial misconduct,

our highest court held, “False or perjured testimony is not a ground for relief under

RCr 11.42.” Stopher v. Commonwealth, No. 2005-SC-0371-MR, 2006 WL

3386641, at *5 (Ky. Nov. 22, 2006) (citing Hargrove v. Commonwealth, 396

S.W.2d 75 (Ky. 1965) and Fields v. Commonwealth, 408 S.W.2d 638 (Ky. 1966)).

Although unpublished, Stopher is the most recent, final word and thoughtful

opinion of the highest court of the Commonwealth on this point of law and should

stand with other reasoned precedent notwithstanding its nonpublished status.

Accordingly, we affirm.

ALL CONCUR.

-3- BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

David L. Stewart Daniel Cameron La Grange, Kentucky Attorney General of Kentucky

Perry T. Ryan Assistant Attorney General Frankfort, Kentucky

-4-