Mitchell Rice v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky
• Decided: August 22, 2025
• Docket: 2024-CA-0177
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

RENDERED: AUGUST 22, 2025; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2024-CA-0177-MR

MITCHELL RICE APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM HART CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JOSEPH G. BALLARD, JUDGE ACTION NO. 21-CR-00160

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE

OPINION AFFIRMING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: CETRULO, ECKERLE, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

TAYLOR, JUDGE: Mitchell Rice brings this appeal from a January 16, 2024,

Final Judgment of Conviction of the Hart Circuit Court sentencing Rice to a total

of eighteen-years’ imprisonment. We affirm.

Rice was indicted by Hart County Grand Jury upon two counts of

first-degree assault for the stabbing of two separate victims. The Commonwealth

of Kentucky offered Rice a plea bargain. Thereunder, Rice would plead guilty to

two counts of second-degree assault and would be sentenced to ten-years’ imprisonment on one count and eight-years’ imprisonment on the other count, to

be served consecutively for a total of eighteen-years’ imprisonment. Eventually,

Rice signed the plea offer and filed a motion to enter a guilty plea. The circuit

court held a hearing and accepted Rice’s guilty plea.

Before final sentencing, Rice, pro se, filed a motion to withdraw his

guilty plea. Rice alleged that he could neither read nor write and misunderstood

the terms of the guilty plea. In particular, Rice maintained that he believed that the

sentences of imprisonment upon the two counts of second-degree assault would

run concurrently for a total of ten-years’ imprisonment and not consecutively for a

total of eighteen-years’ of imprisonment.

Rice was appointed conflict counsel, and the circuit court held a

hearing. Rice and his attorney testified. Ultimately, by order entered December

21, 2023, the circuit court denied Rice’s motion to withdraw guilty plea. The

circuit court found that Rice knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered the

guilty plea. The circuit court sentenced Rice to a total of eighteen-years’

imprisonment in a January 16, 2024, Final Judgment of Conviction. This appeal

follows.

Rice contends that the circuit court erred by finding that he entered the

guilty plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Rice argues that he is unable

to read or to write. Rice alleges that he misunderstood that he would be sentenced

-2- to a total of eighteen-years’ imprisonment. Rice maintains that he believed the

sentence of imprisonment would be ten years and that he was confused concerning

the meaning of consecutive or concurrent sentences.

It is well-established that “[t]o be valid, a guilty plea must be entered

‘intelligently and voluntarily.’” Hammond v. Commonwealth, 569 S.W.3d 404,

408 (Ky. 2019) (quoting Bronk v. Commonwealth, 58 S.W.3d 482, 486 (Ky.

2001)). The guilty plea must represent “a voluntary and intelligent choice among

the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.” Sturgill v.

Commonwealth, 533 S.W.3d 204, 208 (Ky. App. 2017).

If a guilty plea is not entered voluntarily, intelligently, or knowingly, a

defendant may file a motion to withdraw the guilty plea. Under Kentucky Rules of

Criminal Procedure (RCr) 8.10, the circuit court may permit the defendant to

withdraw his guilty plea before entry of final judgment. If the guilty plea was

entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, the circuit court’s decision to

grant the motion to withdraw is within its discretion. Rigdon v. Commonwealth,

144 S.W.3d 283, 288 (Ky. App. 2004). On the other hand, if the guilty plea was

not entered knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily, the circuit court must grant the

motion to withdraw. Ebu v. Commonwealth, 661 S.W.3d 319, 326 (Ky. App.

2022); Rigdon, 144 S.W.3d at 288. To determine whether the guilty plea is

knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered, the circuit court evaluates the

-3- totality of the circumstances surrounding the guilty plea. This determination is

“fact-sensitive” and will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by substantial

evidence of a probative value. Ebu, 661 S.W.3d at 326; Rigdon, 144 S.W.3d at

288.

In this case, the record reveals that the circuit court conducted a plea

colloquy with Rice per Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969). During the plea

colloquy, the circuit court informed Rice that under the plea agreement the

Commonwealth recommended a total of eighteen-years’ imprisonment. The

circuit court particularly asked Rice: “Is that your understanding of the plea

agreement?” Rice responded: “Yes sir.” And the court inquired: “Do you have

any question on that?” Rice responded: “No sir.” The circuit court was aware that

Rice could not read or write, so the court asked: “Did you[r] attorneys read

everything [to] you?” Rice answered: “Yes.” During the hearing on the motion to

withdraw guilty plea, Rice reiterated that he could neither read nor write and that

he thought his total sentence of imprisonment would be ten years. In accepting the

plea offer, one of Rice’s attorneys testified that a main consideration was Rice’s

parole eligibility. According to the attorney, Rice would not have been eligible for

parole until he served 85 percent of his sentence of imprisonment if convicted by a

jury; however, with the plea agreement, Rice’s parole eligibility was reduced to 20

percent of his total sentence of imprisonment.

-4- The circuit court found that Rice knowingly, intelligently, and

voluntarily entered the guilty plea based upon the totality of the circumstances, and

the record contains substantial evidence of a probative value to support same. See

Ebu, 661 S.W.3d at 326; Rigdon, 144 S.W.3d at 288. Moreover, we cannot

conclude that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying Rice’s motion to

withdraw guilty plea. See Rigdon, 144 S.W.3d at 288. Accordingly, we are of the

opinion that the circuit court did not commit error by denying Rice’s motion to

withdraw guilty plea.

For the forgoing reasons, the Final Judgment of Conviction of the

Hart Circuit Court entered on January 16, 2024, is affirmed.

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Kayla D. Deatherage Russell Coleman Assistant Public Advocate Attorney General of Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy Frankfort, Kentucky Matthew R. Krygiel Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Frankfort, Kentucky

-5-