Earnest Bradley Hall Jr v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedAugust 18, 2022
Docket2019 CA 001719
StatusUnknown

This text of Earnest Bradley Hall Jr v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Earnest Bradley Hall Jr 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
Earnest Bradley Hall Jr v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

RENDERED: AUGUST 19, 2022; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

NO. 2019-CA-1719-MR

EARNEST BRADLEY HALL, JR. APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM FLOYD CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JOHNNY RAY HARRIS, JUDGE ACTION NO. 13-CR-00147

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE

OPINION VACATING AND REMANDING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE; ACREE AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

TAYLOR, JUDGE: Earnest Bradley Hall, Jr., appeals from an order of the Floyd

Circuit Court denying his motion to return personal property seized upon his arrest.

For the reasons stated herein, we vacate and remand.

Hall was arrested on or about July 13, 2013, in Floyd County,

Kentucky, after a law enforcement officer approached Hall’s vehicle and witnessed

Hall engaged in oral sex with a juvenile. Upon Hall’s arrest, various items of personal property were seized. Hall was indicted on September 18, 2013, under

Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 510.155, unlawful use of electronic means

originating or received within the Commonwealth to induce a minor to engage in

sexual or other prohibited activities. On February 19, 2014, the Commonwealth

motioned the circuit court to dismiss the indictment because Hall had been indicted

in federal court “for the conduct that resulted in the Floyd County indictment.”

The circuit court granted the motion and the indictment against Hall was dismissed

by order entered the following day.

On June 30, 2017, more than three years after the indictment was

dismissed, the Commonwealth filed a motion in the circuit court pursuant to KRS

500.090 for forfeiture and destruction of twenty-three items of personal property

seized upon Hall’s arrest. The Commonwealth cited KRS 218A.410, which refers

to property subject to forfeiture following a conviction for certain offenses in KRS

Chapter 218A related to controlled substances. The matter came before the circuit

court for a hearing on July 6, 2017. Only the Commonwealth was present. After

reviewing the motion, the court stated on the record, “Well, we are not going to

destruct anything because we probably don’t have it. So, that is moot.” However,

an order was never entered denying the Commonwealth’s motion.

On August 29, 2019, Hall, pro se, filed a motion from federal prison

for the return of his personal property seized upon his arrest. Hall included a list of

-2- twenty-nine items of personal property he sought returned.1 The matter came

before the circuit court on October 31, 2019. Hall was not present. The

Commonwealth advised the circuit court that the property Hall sought had already

been forfeited. The circuit court entered an order on November 4, 2019, that

simply overruled the motion. The circuit court entered a second order on

November 12, 2019, that also overruled the motion, but indicated the court had

been “advised that said property has been forfeited.”

Hall subsequently filed a motion for appointment of counsel and a

notice of appeal. The motion came before the circuit court on December 5, 2019.

Only the Commonwealth was present and informed the circuit court, “You could

appoint a million counsels and there’s nothing I could do because the property has

been forfeited.” The circuit court overruled Hall’s motion, but a written order does

not appear in the court record. This appeal follows.

In forfeiture proceedings, the circuit court’s factual findings are

reviewed on appeal for clear error, while its rulings of law are reviewed de

novo. Commonwealth v. Coffey, 247 S.W.3d 908, 910 (Ky. 2008).

Hall’s primary argument on appeal is that his personal property was

improperly forfeited because he was neither indicted nor convicted under KRS

1 According to Earnest Bradley Hall, Jr.’s motion, the motor vehicle that was seized had apparently been returned to Hall’s mother.

-3- 218A. We agree that Hall was not convicted of any crime in the Floyd Circuit

Court; therefore, his personal property was not subject to forfeiture. However, the

disposition of his personal property is unclear from the record before us. We

therefore vacate the circuit court’s order denying the return of Hall’s property and

remand for factual findings regarding the disposition of the personal property.

Hall was indicted under KRS 510.155. Although we agree KRS

Chapter 218A is inapplicable only to the extent Hall was not indicted nor convicted

for an offense related to controlled substances, KRS 500.0922 also allows for

forfeiture of personal property provided various criteria are met. KRS 500.092

provides, in relevant part:

(1) (a) Notwithstanding KRS 500.090, all personal property which is not used as a permanent residence in this state which is used in connection with or acquired as a result of a violation or attempted violation of any of the statutes set out in subsection (3) of this section shall be subject to forfeiture under the same terms, conditions, and defenses and using the same process as set out in KRS 218A.405 to 218A.460 for property subject to forfeiture under that chapter.

(b) Notwithstanding KRS 500.090, all real and personal property in this state which is used in connection with or acquired as a result of a violation or attempted violation of KRS 531.310 or 531.320 shall be subject to forfeiture under the same terms, conditions, and defenses and using the

2 Kentucky Revised Statutes 500.092 became effective on June 25, 2013, or approximately two and one-half weeks before Hall’s arrest in Floyd County.

-4- same process as set out in KRS 218A.405 to 218A.460 for property subject to forfeiture under that chapter.

(2) Administrative regulations promulgated under KRS 218A.420 shall govern expenditures derived from forfeitures under this section to the same extent that they govern expenditures from forfeitures under KRS 218A.405 to 218A.460.

(3) The following offenses may trigger forfeiture of personal property under subsection (1)(a) of this section:

(a) KRS 17.546;

(b) KRS 508.140

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

Related

Commonwealth v. Coffey
247 S.W.3d 908 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Earnest Bradley Hall Jr v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/earnest-bradley-hall-jr-v-commonwealth-of-kentucky-kyctapp-2022.