Jesse A. James v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Jesse A. James v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals of Kentucky·Decided August 14, 2026·No. 2024-CA-1052·Unpublished

Opinion

RENDERED: AUGUST 14, 2026; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2024-CA-1052-MR

JESSE A. JAMES APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM BOONE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE RICHARD A. BRUEGGEMANN, JUDGE ACTION NO. 19-CR-00027

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE

OPINION

AFFIRMING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; MCNEILL AND MOYNAHAN, JUDGES.

THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: Jesse James appeals from an order denying his Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42 motion in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. This motion was denied without a hearing. On appeal, Appellant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for abandoning a

mental illness defense and convincing him to plead guilty. Appellant claims that he was entitled to a hearing on his motion. Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On December 1, 2018, Appellant killed Amanda Webster. On January 22, 2019, the Boone County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Appellant with murder,1 tampering with physical evidence,2 theft of identity,3 and being persistent felony offender in the second degree.4 Appellant’s mental health5 has been an issue in this case from the beginning; therefore, on March 6, 2019, he was ordered to undergo an examination by the Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center to determine if he was competent to stand trial. After a hearing was held on the matter, the court held that Appellant was competent. On October 20, 2020, Appellant’s counsel filed a notice that Appellant was going to introduce evidence that he was mentally ill or insane at the time of the offenses.

On December 1, 2020, Appellant entered into a plea agreement with the Commonwealth in which he agreed to plead guilty to all of the offenses for a

1 Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 507.020.

2 KRS 524.100.

3 KRS 514.160.

4 KRS 532.080(2).

5 Appellant has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and had been hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital for a few days in late November of 2018, shortly before the murder.

sentence of thirty-five years in prison. That same day he appeared before the court and entered his guilty plea on the record. The court, Appellant, and Appellant’s counsel engaged in a plea colloquy to ensure that Appellant’s guilty plea was made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. Appellant indicated that he understood the constitutional rights he was giving up, that he was freely entering into the plea agreement, that he was not being coerced, that he had spoken with counsel about the case and any defenses, and that he was happy with his representation. The court then spoke to Appellant’s two defense attorneys and they indicated the same. One of the attorneys also informed the judge about Appellant’s mental health issues, that he had been previously found competent, and that she believed he was currently competent.6 The court then accepted the guilty plea and Appellant was later sentenced in accordance to it.

On July 7, 2023, Appellant filed a RCr 11.42 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant argued that, due to his mental illness, his trial counsel was ineffective for abandoning the mental illness defense and advising Appellant to plead guilty. Appellant also requested an evidentiary hearing. On August 2, 2024, the court denied Appellant’s motion for a hearing and denied his RCr 11.42 motion. This appeal followed.

6 The court questioned Appellant and his counsel about other issues regarding the plea agreement during the colloquy; however, these are the ones most relevant to this appeal.

VIOLATIONS OF KENTUCKY RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE Before we address the merits of Appellant’s appeal, we must first comment on Appellant’s appellate counsel, Darrell Cox, and his failure to follow the Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure (RAP). Appellant’s brief does not contain a single citation to the record, which violates RAP 32(A)(3), and does not indicate how the issues on appeal were preserved for review, which violates RAP 32(A)(4). In J.P.T. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 689 S.W.3d 149 (Ky. App. 2024), this Court chastised Mr. Cox for similar failures and described five other cases in which he failed to follow the appellate rules. Mr. Cox was warned, in a published opinion, to be more mindful, but he has not done so. We will be entering a separate order sanctioning Mr. Cox for his continued failure to abide by the rules of appellate procedure. RAP 10(B)(4). Even though Appellant’s counsel failed to follow our rules, we will still address the merits of his case.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A showing that counsel’s assistance was ineffective in enabling a defendant to intelligently weigh his legal alternatives in deciding to plead guilty has two components: (1) that counsel made errors so serious that counsel’s performance fell outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance; and (2) that the deficient performance so seriously affected the outcome of the plea process that, but for

the errors of counsel, there is a reasonable probability that the defendant would not have pleaded guilty, but would have insisted on going to trial.

Evaluating the totality of the circumstances surrounding the guilty plea is an inherently factual inquiry which requires consideration of “the accused’s demeanor, background and experience, and whether the record reveals that the plea was voluntarily made.”

While “[s]olemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity,” “the validity of a guilty plea is not determined by reference to some magic incantation recited at the time it is taken[.]” The trial court’s inquiry into allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel requires the court to determine whether counsel’s performance was below professional standards and “caused the defendant to lose what he otherwise would probably have won” and “whether counsel was so thoroughly ineffective that defeat was snatched from the hands of probable victory.” Because “[a] multitude of events occur in the course of a criminal proceeding which might influence a defendant to plead guilty or stand trial,” the trial court must evaluate whether errors by trial counsel significantly influenced the defendant’s decision to plead guilty in a manner which gives the trial court reason to doubt the voluntariness and validity of the plea.

Bronk v. Commonwealth, 58 S.W.3d 482, 486-87 (Ky. 2001) (citations omitted).

Where the trial court does not hold an evidentiary hearing on an RCr 11.42 motion, appellate review is limited to “whether the motion on its face states grounds that are not conclusively refuted by the record and which, if true, would invalidate the conviction.” An evidentiary hearing is only required “if there is a material issue of fact that cannot be conclusively resolved, i.e., conclusively proved or disproved, by an examination of the record.”

Haley v. Commonwealth, 586 S.W.3d 744, 750 (Ky. App. 2019) (citations omitted).

ANALYSIS

Appellant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for convincing him to plead guilty and not going to trial with a mental illness defense, and that he was entitled to a hearing to help prove these allegations. We find no error here. A hearing was not warranted in this case because there are no material issues of fact that could not be resolved by the record. After reviewing the hearing where Appellant entered his guilty plea, it is clear that Appellant and his counsel were thoroughly questioned by the trial court regarding his plea and whether it was being made voluntarily. In addition, Appellant had previously been deemed competent to stand trial. Competency to stand trial and competency to enter a guilty plea are subject to the same standard. Littlefield v. Commonwealth, 554 S.W.2d 872, 873 (Ky. App. 1977). There is no evidence that Appellant was not aware of the mental illness defense, that he was coerced by his attorneys into pleading guilty, or that he was mentally incapable of entering into a plea agreement.

CONCLUSION

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

RENDERED: AUGUST 14, 2026; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2024-CA-1052-MR

JESSE A. JAMES APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM BOONE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE RICHARD A. BRUEGGEMANN, JUDGE ACTION NO. 19-CR-00027

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE

OPINION

AFFIRMING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; MCNEILL AND MOYNAHAN, JUDGES.

THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: Jesse James appeals from an order denying his Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42 motion in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. This motion was denied without a hearing. On appeal, Appellant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for abandoning a

mental illness defense and convincing him to plead guilty. Appellant claims that he was entitled to a hearing on his motion. Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On December 1, 2018, Appellant killed Amanda Webster. On January 22, 2019, the Boone County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Appellant with murder,1 tampering with physical evidence,2 theft of identity,3 and being persistent felony offender in the second degree.4 Appellant’s mental health5 has been an issue in this case from the beginning; therefore, on March 6, 2019, he was ordered to undergo an examination by the Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center to determine if he was competent to stand trial. After a hearing was held on the matter, the court held that Appellant was competent. On October 20, 2020, Appellant’s counsel filed a notice that Appellant was going to introduce evidence that he was mentally ill or insane at the time of the offenses.

On December 1, 2020, Appellant entered into a plea agreement with the Commonwealth in which he agreed to plead guilty to all of the offenses for a

1 Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 507.020.

2 KRS 524.100.

3 KRS 514.160.

4 KRS 532.080(2).

5 Appellant has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and had been hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital for a few days in late November of 2018, shortly before the murder.

sentence of thirty-five years in prison. That same day he appeared before the court and entered his guilty plea on the record. The court, Appellant, and Appellant’s counsel engaged in a plea colloquy to ensure that Appellant’s guilty plea was made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. Appellant indicated that he understood the constitutional rights he was giving up, that he was freely entering into the plea agreement, that he was not being coerced, that he had spoken with counsel about the case and any defenses, and that he was happy with his representation. The court then spoke to Appellant’s two defense attorneys and they indicated the same. One of the attorneys also informed the judge about Appellant’s mental health issues, that he had been previously found competent, and that she believed he was currently competent.6 The court then accepted the guilty plea and Appellant was later sentenced in accordance to it.

On July 7, 2023, Appellant filed a RCr 11.42 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant argued that, due to his mental illness, his trial counsel was ineffective for abandoning the mental illness defense and advising Appellant to plead guilty. Appellant also requested an evidentiary hearing. On August 2, 2024, the court denied Appellant’s motion for a hearing and denied his RCr 11.42 motion. This appeal followed.

6 The court questioned Appellant and his counsel about other issues regarding the plea agreement during the colloquy; however, these are the ones most relevant to this appeal.

VIOLATIONS OF KENTUCKY RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE Before we address the merits of Appellant’s appeal, we must first comment on Appellant’s appellate counsel, Darrell Cox, and his failure to follow the Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure (RAP). Appellant’s brief does not contain a single citation to the record, which violates RAP 32(A)(3), and does not indicate how the issues on appeal were preserved for review, which violates RAP 32(A)(4). In J.P.T. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 689 S.W.3d 149 (Ky. App. 2024), this Court chastised Mr. Cox for similar failures and described five other cases in which he failed to follow the appellate rules. Mr. Cox was warned, in a published opinion, to be more mindful, but he has not done so. We will be entering a separate order sanctioning Mr. Cox for his continued failure to abide by the rules of appellate procedure. RAP 10(B)(4). Even though Appellant’s counsel failed to follow our rules, we will still address the merits of his case.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A showing that counsel’s assistance was ineffective in enabling a defendant to intelligently weigh his legal alternatives in deciding to plead guilty has two components: (1) that counsel made errors so serious that counsel’s performance fell outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance; and (2) that the deficient performance so seriously affected the outcome of the plea process that, but for

the errors of counsel, there is a reasonable probability that the defendant would not have pleaded guilty, but would have insisted on going to trial.

Evaluating the totality of the circumstances surrounding the guilty plea is an inherently factual inquiry which requires consideration of “the accused’s demeanor, background and experience, and whether the record reveals that the plea was voluntarily made.”

While “[s]olemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity,” “the validity of a guilty plea is not determined by reference to some magic incantation recited at the time it is taken[.]” The trial court’s inquiry into allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel requires the court to determine whether counsel’s performance was below professional standards and “caused the defendant to lose what he otherwise would probably have won” and “whether counsel was so thoroughly ineffective that defeat was snatched from the hands of probable victory.” Because “[a] multitude of events occur in the course of a criminal proceeding which might influence a defendant to plead guilty or stand trial,” the trial court must evaluate whether errors by trial counsel significantly influenced the defendant’s decision to plead guilty in a manner which gives the trial court reason to doubt the voluntariness and validity of the plea.

Bronk v. Commonwealth, 58 S.W.3d 482, 486-87 (Ky. 2001) (citations omitted).

Where the trial court does not hold an evidentiary hearing on an RCr 11.42 motion, appellate review is limited to “whether the motion on its face states grounds that are not conclusively refuted by the record and which, if true, would invalidate the conviction.” An evidentiary hearing is only required “if there is a material issue of fact that cannot be conclusively resolved, i.e., conclusively proved or disproved, by an examination of the record.”

Haley v. Commonwealth, 586 S.W.3d 744, 750 (Ky. App. 2019) (citations omitted).

ANALYSIS

Appellant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for convincing him to plead guilty and not going to trial with a mental illness defense, and that he was entitled to a hearing to help prove these allegations. We find no error here. A hearing was not warranted in this case because there are no material issues of fact that could not be resolved by the record. After reviewing the hearing where Appellant entered his guilty plea, it is clear that Appellant and his counsel were thoroughly questioned by the trial court regarding his plea and whether it was being made voluntarily. In addition, Appellant had previously been deemed competent to stand trial. Competency to stand trial and competency to enter a guilty plea are subject to the same standard. Littlefield v. Commonwealth, 554 S.W.2d 872, 873 (Ky. App. 1977). There is no evidence that Appellant was not aware of the mental illness defense, that he was coerced by his attorneys into pleading guilty, or that he was mentally incapable of entering into a plea agreement.

CONCLUSION

Appellant was facing life in prison if he had gone to trial. Instead, he received a sentence of thirty-five years. A mental illness defense could have

shielded Appellant at trial or it could have failed altogether. Appellant chose to enter a guilty plea and not go to trial. We find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Darrell A. Cox Russell Coleman Covington, Kentucky Attorney General of Kentucky

Graham Pilotte

Assistant Solicitor General Frankfort, Kentucky

Jesse A. James v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, (Ky. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Jesse A. James v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Jesse A. James v. Commonwealth of Kentucky) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related