Demetrius M. Clayton v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedJune 13, 2024
Docket2023 CA 000172
StatusUnknown

This text of Demetrius M. Clayton v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Demetrius M. Clayton 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.

Bluebook
Demetrius M. Clayton v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, (Ky. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

RENDERED: JUNE 14, 2024; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2023-CA-0172-MR

DEMETRIUS M. CLAYTON APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE KELLY MARK EASTON, JUDGE ACTION NOS. 18-CR-00109 AND 18-CR-00110

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE

OPINION AFFIRMING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: CALDWELL, ECKERLE, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

MCNEILL, JUDGE: Demetrius Clayton (“Clayton”) appeals from the Hardin

Circuit Court’s Order entered January 4, 2022, which denied his motion for relief

pursuant to CR1 60.02(d), (e), and (f). We affirm.

1 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure. BACKGROUND

On November 19, 2017, Clayton unlawfully entered into a residence

and assaulted the owner of the residence. On February 8, 2018, Clayton was

indicted by the Hardin County Grand Jury for assault in the first degree, burglary

in the first degree, possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, wanton

endangerment in the first degree, and being a persistent felony offender in the first

degree.2

On January 24, 2018, Clayton had been speeding in Hardin County,

Kentucky. When a police officer attempted to pull over Clayton’s vehicle, he fled

from the scene. Clayton was indicted on the same day for fleeing or evading

police in the first degree, operating a motor vehicle under the influence of

intoxicants (first offense), speeding, operating on a suspended operator’s license,

disregarding a traffic control device, reckless driving; fleeing or evading police in

the second degree, wanton endangerment in the first degree (police officer),

possession of synthetic drugs, illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, failure to

illuminate head lamps, and improper use of blue lights.3 Clayton pled guilty to

2 Indictment No. 18-CR-00109; Kentucky Revised Statutes (“KRS”) 508.010; KRS 511.020; KRS 527.040; KRS 532.080(3). 3 Indictment No. 18-CR-00110; KRS 520.095; KRS 189A.010(5)(A); KRS 189.390; KRS 186.620(2); KRS 189.231(2); KRS 189.290; KRS 520.100; KRS 508.060; KRS 218A.1430; KRS 218A.500(2); KRS 189.030; KRS 189.950.

-2- both indictments on August 7, 2018. In total, Clayton was to serve 25 years on

both convictions.

On February 26, 2021, Clayton submitted a motion pursuant to CR

60.02 and RCr4 11.42 to vacate his judgment.5 The CR 60.02/RCr 11.42 motion

was denied by the trial court by Order on April 26, 2021. Clayton filed a notice of

appeal for both cases with this Court; however, he filed motions to dismiss both

appeals which were granted by Order on January 12, 2022.6

On December 16, 2022, Clayton filed a motion pursuant to CR

60.02(d), (e), and (f) in each case. The trial court denied the motion, stating that

Clayton could have presented his claims in his previous CR 60.02 motion, and,

thus, the motion was procedurally barred. This appeal follows.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A trial court’s decision on a CR 60.02 motion is reviewed under an

abuse of discretion standard. White v. Commonwealth, 32 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Ky.

App. 2000). “The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge’s decision

was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.”

4 Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure. 5 The trial court had to ask for clarity whether Clayton was submitting his motion pursuant to CR 60.02 or RCr 11.42, and if the motion was for both of his cases. Clayton clarified that he was submitting the motion under both CR 60.02 and RCr 11.42. 6 Appeals No. 2021-CA-0572-MR and No. 2021-CA-0574-MR.

-3- Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999). Therefore, we will

affirm the trial court’s decision unless there is a showing of some “flagrant

miscarriage of justice.” Gross v. Commonwealth, 648 S.W.2d 853, 858 (Ky.

1983).

ANALYSIS

Clayton argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied

his September 16, 2022, CR 60.02 motion because his convictions are void as the

rules governing grand jury proceedings were violated in his case when the trial

court did not provide him a DVD recording of the proceeding.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Clayton’s

motion for relief. “A defendant who is in custody under sentence . . . is required to

avail himself of RCr 11.42 as to any ground of which he is aware, or should be

aware, during the period when the remedy is available to him.” McQueen v.

Commonwealth, 948 S.W.2d 415, 416 (Ky. 1997). Additionally, “our rules of civil

procedure do not permit successive motions.” Stocker v. Commonwealth, 289

S.W.3d 592, 597 (Ky. App. 2009). Clayton has already filed a motion pursuant to

RCr 11.42 and CR 60.02 to vacate his conviction, which was denied by the trial

court on April 26, 2021. Record (“R.”) Vol. I at 84-91, No. 18-CR-00109. The

current issue raised by Clayton is one that could have, and should have, been raised

in the prior RCr 11.42 and CR 60.02 motion. Because Clayton’s post-conviction

-4- motion is successive in nature and raises an issue that should have been brought in

his initial RCr 11.42/CR 60.02 motion, it is improper under Kentucky law.

Even assuming, arguendo, that Clayton’s latest CR 60.02 motion was

not barred procedurally, it would still fail. By entering a plea of guilty, Clayton

waived any defense to the validity of his indictments except that the indictments do

not charge an actual crime. Centers v. Commonwealth, 799 S.W.2d 51, 55 (Ky.

1990). Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Clayton’s

CR 60.02 motion.

CONCLUSION

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stoker v. Commonwealth
289 S.W.3d 592 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 2009)
McQueen v. Commonwealth
948 S.W.2d 415 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 1997)
Commonwealth v. English
993 S.W.2d 941 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 1999)
White v. Commonwealth
32 S.W.3d 83 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 2000)
Centers v. Commonwealth
799 S.W.2d 51 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1990)
Gross v. Commonwealth
648 S.W.2d 853 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Demetrius M. Clayton v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demetrius-m-clayton-v-commonwealth-of-kentucky-kyctapp-2024.