John Mills v. Hon Stephen Jones in His Capacity as Special Judge of the Circuit Court for the 27th Judicial Circuit
This text of John Mills v. Hon Stephen Jones in His Capacity as Special Judge of the Circuit Court for the 27th Judicial Circuit (John Mills v. Hon Stephen Jones in His Capacity as Special Judge of the Circuit Court for the 27th Judicial Circuit) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Kentucky Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION
THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED “NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.” PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER, UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS, RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE ACTION. RENDERED: JUNE 14, 2018 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
JOHN MILLS PETITIONER
V. IN THE SUPREME COURT
HONORABLE STEPHEN JONES, SPECIAL RESPONDENT JUDGE KNOX CIRCUIT COURT
AND
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS
A jury convicted John Mills of murder, first-degree robbery, and first-degree
burglary, and sentenced him to death. After an unsuccessful direct appeal from
the final judgment, Mills initiated post-conviction proceedings under Kentucky
Rule of Criminal Procedure (“RCr”) 11.42 in the trial court. The trial court
granted him partial relief by vacating the death sentence after determining that
he received ineffective assistance of counsel in the capital sentencing phase of
the trial. After unsuccessful appeals of the trial court’s post-conviction ruling by both Mills and the Commonwealth, Mills’s case is back before the trial
court, which is about to start the re-trial of the capital sentencing phase.
Mills now petitions this court for a writ of prohibition, attempting to
prevent any consideration of the death penalty in the re-trial. Mills alleges that
the trial court erred when it denied his motion to exclude the possibility of a
death sentence because he is intellectually disabled.
We conclude that Mills has not made the requisite showing for the grant
of a writ of prohibition because adequate remedies exist that preclude this
Court from granting Mills’s writ petition. So we deny Mills’s writ petition.
I. BACKGROUND.
In advance of the re-trial date, Mills filed a motion to exclude the death
penalty from consideration. The trial court conducted a hearing in which Mills
presented expert and lay witness testimony in support of his claim of
intellectual disability. At the end of the hearing, the trial court ordered Mills to
file a memorandum of law in support of his motion to exclude consideration of
the death penalty, allowing a response from the Commonwealth. After both
parties filed their respective memoranda, the trial court denied Mills’s motion,
thus allowing consideration of the death penalty during the sentencing phase
of Mills’s trial.
Mills then petitioned this Court for a writ of prohibition, seeking to
prohibit any possible consideration of the death penalty during the sentencing
phase of his trial. As Mills’s trial was scheduled for the week following the
denial of Mills’s motion, the trial court entered an order staying proceedings
pending this Court’s determination of Mills’s writ petition.
2 II. ANALYSIS.
A. Writ Standard.
This Court in Commonwealth v. Peters explained that “relief by way of a
writ of prohibition is an ‘extraordinary remedy and we have always been
cautious and conservative both in entertaining petitions for and in granting
such relief.”’1 Writ cases are divided into essentially two classes based on
whether the inferior court allegedly is acting: (1) without jurisdiction (which
includes “beyond its jurisdiction”); or (2) erroneously within its jurisdiction.2
When the petitioner is alleging that the lower court is acting erroneously
within its jurisdiction, “a writ will only be granted when two threshold
requirements are satisfied: there exists no adequate remedy by appeal or
otherwise; and the petitioner will suffer great and irreparable harm.”3 Under
the “certain special cases” exception, the writ can be granted “in the absence of
a showing of specific great and irreparable injury...provided a substantial
miscarriage of justice will result if the lower court is proceeding erroneously,
and correction of the error is necessary and appropriate in the interest of
orderly judicial administration.”4 But the certain special cases exception still
requires a showing of a lack of an adequate remedy by appeal when the alleged
error is that of the court erroneously acting within its jurisdiction.5 No
1 353 S.W.3d 592, 595 (Ky. 2011) (quoting Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trude, 151 S.W.3d 803, 808 (Ky. 2004)). 2 Id.
3 Peters, 353 S.W.3d at 595 (citing Hoskins v. Maricle, 150 S.W.3d 1, 18 (Ky. 2004)). 4 Peters, 353 S.W.3d at 595 (quoting Bender v. Eaton, 343 S.W.2d 799, 801 (Ky. 1961) (emphasis in original)). 5 Independent Order of Foresters v. Chauvin, 175 S.W.3d 610, 617 (Ky. 2005) (citing Bender, 343 S.W.2d at 801)). 3 adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise means that the injury to be
suffered...‘could not therefore be rectified by subsequent proceedings in the
case.”’6
B. Mills’s petition does not satisfy the “no-adequate-remedies” prong.
Mills’s petition falls under the second class of writ petitions because he
alleges that the trial court is acting erroneously within its jurisdiction by
allowing the jury to consider the imposition of the death penalty on an allegedly
intellectually disabled defendant. So for this Court to grant Mills’s writ petition,
Mills must first establish that he has no adequate remedy by appeal or
otherwise for what he seeks. The Commonwealth’s entire argument is on this
point—the Commonwealth argues that Mills does have adequate remedies by
appeal or otherwise, and therefore this Court should deny his writ petition.
We agree with the Commonwealth that Mills has adequate remedies to
redress his true grievance—a sentence of death. First, Mills has filed in the trial
court a motion to reconsider its decision, which the trial court may be obliged
to do considering this Court’s opinion rendered today in Woodall v.
Commonwealth.7 Second, the re-trial has not begun, so this Court may be
prematurely ruling on something that may not happen—a jury may decide to
recommend a sentence other than death. Third, if Mills were sentenced to
death, he will have the automatic right to a direct appeal to this Court under
6 Ridgeway Nursing & Rehabilitation Facility, LLC u. Lane, 415 S.W.3d 635, 640 (Ky. 2013) (quoting Bender, 343 S.W.2d at 802)). 7 2017-SC-000171-MR (Ky.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
John Mills v. Hon Stephen Jones in His Capacity as Special Judge of the Circuit Court for the 27th Judicial Circuit, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-mills-v-hon-stephen-jones-in-his-capacity-as-special-judge-of-the-ky-2018.