SMITH (GEORGE GLENN) VS. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: JANUARY 15, 2010; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2009-CA-000884-MR
GEORGE GLENN SMITH
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM GRAVES CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE TIMOTHY C. STARK, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 01-CR-00044 & NO. 01-CR-00124
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: KELLER AND WINE, JUDGES; LAMBERT,1 SENIOR JUDGE.
LAMBERT, SENIOR JUDGE: George Glenn Smith presents two issues in his
appeal from the trial court’s denial of relief pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil
Procedure (CR) 60.02. Upon review of the record, we conclude that a hearing was
1
Senior Judge Joseph E. Lambert sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the Chief Justice
pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and Kentucky Revised Statutes
(KRS) 21.580.
not required and affirm the conclusion that post-conviction counsel was not
ineffective.
Smith was indicted by the Graves Circuit Court grand jury and
charged with attempted murder and wanton endangerment in the first degree.
Following a verdict of guilty, he was sentenced to serve 25 years’ imprisonment.
At the outset of the proceeding, a public advocate was assigned to represent Smith,
but she withdrew when it became evident that her office also represented others
involved in the trial. A second public advocate was then appointed but also
withdrew because of a conflict of interest. Next, Smith hired private counsel, but
she too withdrew when it was disclosed that her secretary’s sister was to be a
witness against Smith. Finally, another public advocate was appointed who
proceeded to represent Smith.
Smith appealed as a matter of right to the Supreme Court of Kentucky
which affirmed the judgment and conviction. Smith v. Commonwealth, 2004 WL
102495 (Ky. 2004) (2002-SC-0988-TG). Smith then filed a motion in the trial
court alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. His specific issue in that
motion was that the Commonwealth had extended a plea offer of 3 years to one of
Smith’s attorneys but that Smith was never informed of that potential plea bargain.
The trial court rejected the argument and denied the motion but without an
evidentiary hearing. Smith appealed from that decision to this court. We reversed
-2-
and remanded the matter to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the issue
raised. Smith v. Commonwealth, 2005 WL 2045952 (Ky. App. 2005) (2004-CA002152-MR).
The trial court conducted a hearing but again denied relief pursuant to
Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42. Smith’s actual trial attorney
testified in that proceeding, but the other three attorneys who had represented
Smith were not called as witnesses. Smith appealed from that denial of RCr 11.42
relief and this court affirmed the trial court determination. Smith v.
Commonwealth, 2008 WL 1991644 (Ky. App. 2008) (2007-CA-000186-MR).
Smith next sought relief pursuant to CR 60.02 alleging that counsel at
the RCr 11.42 hearing rendered constitutionally ineffective service due to the
failure to subpoena the first three attorneys. Smith’s central allegation was that the
Commonwealth had extended an offer of 3 years’ imprisonment but that he was
never informed of that offer. The trial court rejected the argument finding that
Smith knew of the 3-year plea offer but that he had rejected it prior to trial. The
trial court based its finding on testimony from the RCr 11.42 evidentiary hearing.
There was no new evidentiary hearing on the CR 60.02 motion.
Smith now appeals from the adverse order in the CR 60.02 proceeding
and argues that post-conviction counsel was constitutionally deficient during the
RCr 11.42 proceeding by failing to subpoena all of the prior trial attorneys. He
contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied CR 60.02 relief
without a new evidentiary hearing.
-3-
The Commonwealth argues that Smith’s CR 60.02 motion was, in
effect, a successive motion for relief pursuant to RCr 11.42. Although successive
motions for relief pursuant to RCr 11.42 are disfavored, this is not such a case.
See McQueen v. Commonwealth, 948 S.W.2d 415, 416 (Ky. 1997). Smith’s RCr
11.42 motion alleged a failure by trial counsel to inform him of a potential 3-year
plea offer. His CR 60.02 motion alleged a failure of post-conviction counsel to
properly represent him by failing to subpoena all of his former trial attorneys to
prove that a 3-year plea bargain offer was made. These are entirely different
issues, and a plea for relief pursuant to CR 60.02 was an appropriate procedural
vehicle.
Despite the foregoing, we must not overlook that “[t]he decision to
hold an evidentiary hearing is within the trial court’s discretion and we will not
disturb such absent any abuse of that discretion.” Land v. Commonwealth, 986
S.W.2d 440, 442 (Ky. 1999). An evidentiary hearing on a motion for postconviction relief is “not necessary when the record in the case refutes the movant’s
allegations.” Hopewell v. Commonwealth, 687 S.W.2d 153, 154 (Ky. App. 1985).
Here, the trial court determined that the record was sufficient to decide the issue
and we do not disagree.
We are obligated to respect the trial court’s findings of fact and
determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses. Commonwealth v. Bussell,
226 S.W.3d 96, 99 (Ky. 2007). Such findings are conclusive unless clearly
erroneous. Id. In this regard, we note that during the hearing held in conjunction
-4-
with Smith’s RCr 11.42 motion, his final trial counsel testified. She was asked if
she ever received an offer on a plea from the Commonwealth in Smith’s case. Her
response indicated that she had received a 10-year offer but not a 3-year offer. She
testified that she went to visit Smith prior to trial and had an assistant with her that
day. She further noted that Smith was very upset and that he said, “How could
they offer me 10 years when they offered me 3 years before?”
This testimony was sufficient for the trial court to find that Smith
knew of the prior 3-year offer and that contrary to his claim, he had been informed
of the offer by prior counsel. This testimony relieved any need for prior counsel to
present direct testimony. The trial court was within its discretion to make such a
determination from the prior RCr 11.42 record. As such, it was not ineffective
assistance for post-conviction counsel to refrain from issuing a subpoena for all of
Smith’s trial attorneys. The testimony referred to hereinabove answered the
question before the trial court.
The judgment of the Graves Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
George Glenn Smith, pro se
Sandy Hook, Kentucky
Jack Conway
Attorney General of Kentucky
Michael L. Harned
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
-5-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.