HINKLE (RUSSELL R.) VS. THOMPSON (CARRIE L.)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: DECEMBER 3, 2010; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2010-CA-000704-ME
RUSSELL R. HINKLE
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE ELISE SPAINHOUR, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 10-D-00067
CARRIE L. THOMPSON
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CLAYTON, NICKELL AND THOMPSON, JUDGES.
NICKELL, JUDGE: Russell R. Hinkle, pro se, appeals from entry of a domestic
violence order by the Bullitt Circuit Court. We affirm.
Hinkle and Carrie L. Thompson divorced in December of 2009. On
February 25, 2010, Thompson filed a domestic violence petition alleging:
[Hinkle] has harassed me and my children since we left.
We have been divorced since December. He continues to
show up at my job & calls the store almost daily. He has
followed me and when I pulled onto my dad’s street he
took off. After him calling the store to see if I was there I
had a nail in my tire. He is sending letters to my
childrens (sic) school & starting a website that is
slandering to me and my kids. I am scared for me and
my kids of what he might do next. I have even contacted
the FBI regarding the website. Please HELP.
A hearing was convened on March 8, 2010, at which both Thompson and Hinkle
testified. Thompson, who works at Sam’s Club, confirmed the allegations stated in
the petition were true. Hinkle, a retired teacher/principal, was represented by
counsel who moved to dismiss the petition because it did not allege violence or the
threat of violence. The court responded that it was concerned about Hinkle
stalking Thompson and the taking of proof continued. Hinkle denied following
Thompson, but admitted launching a website to give his side of the divorce. He
denied threatening Thompson on the website. He explained that the only time he
goes to Sam’s Club is to pick up photos that have been processed or to buy
household items. If he sees Thompson during his visits to Sam’s Club he inquires
of her how their sons are doing. He denied sending letters to the children’s school
and putting a nail in Thompson’s tire. Through counsel, Hinkle suggested he was
contacting Thompson to collect a debt from her that remained unpaid after the
divorce.
At the conclusion of eleven minutes of testimony, the court stated:
“I think an act of domestic violence has occurred here, i.e. you cannot repeatedly
call somebody at work, show up at their place of employment, and quite frankly, I
think you were following her.” Thereafter, the court ordered that Hinkle have no
-2-
contact with Thompson and remain 1,500 feet away from her; that Hinkle attend
anger management counseling; and that Thompson attend the Choices counseling
program. The court stated it thought there was a better way to handle a divorce
than “going online and following and bugging somebody at work.”
Hinkle appealed to this Court. We set forth his one-page brief in its
entirety.
INTRODUCTION
This is a case in which an individual appeals a
Domestic Violence Order (DVO). The specific issues
are: 1. no violence occurred nor were there any threats of
violence; 2. the judge who signed the DVO failed to rule
on a motion to dismiss; 3. of the six allegations contained
in the Domestic Violence Petition, there was only one
piece of evidence submitted on one of the six allegations
while the other allegations went unsubstantial (sic)
without evidence; 4. the individual on which the DVO
was placed was never informed by the Judge not (sic) his
attorney that a “trial” was in process.
Appellant, Russell R. Hinkle did not check out the
record.
Appendix consists of:
Copy of DVO
Page 3 of DVO Summons
Copy of video of “hearing”
-3-
CONCLUSION
I am not a lawyer but is (sic) seems clear that justice
was not served and I feel that before a person can be
placed on a DVO and court ordered to attend anger
management counseling that it should be shown that
violence or threat of violence should be demonstrated,
that the judge should have ruled on the motion to dismiss,
that evidence must be presented proving allegations and
that one should be informed that a trial is in progress!
We are mindful that Hinkle is conducting his own appeal and courts
generally hold pro se litigants to a lesser standard than that imposed upon
attorneys, with some leniency being given when evaluating compliance with
procedural requirements. Miller v. Commonwealth, 416 S.W.2d 358, 360 (Ky.
1967), Case v. Commonwealth, 467 S.W.2d 358, 360 (Ky. 1971). However, there
are rules, both procedural and substantive, that are so deeply ingrained in our
jurisprudence that even under the rule of lenity, they cannot be wholly ignored.
For example, Hinkle's brief fails to cite any authority. If a party does not cite
authority for an argument, we are not required to address the argument. See CR1
76.12; Cherry v. Augustus, 245 S.W.3d 766, 781 (Ky. App. 2006). His brief is also
devoid of citations to the record or a statement regarding proper preservation of the
alleged errors in the proceedings below, both of which are mandated by CR 76.12.
Thus, he has failed to even minimally comply with the procedural requirements for
filing a brief.
1
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
-4-
We afford leeway to pro se litigants. Beecham v. Commonwealth, 657
S.W.2d 234, 236 (Ky. 1983). However, the deficiencies in Hinkle’s brief are so
glaring and so pervasive it is extremely difficult to determine the issues he asks us
to review on appeal. Nevertheless, because of the leniency afforded pro se
litigants, we will comment briefly upon the issues mentioned in Hinkle’s brief.
Pursuant to KRS2 403.750(1), a court may enter a domestic violence
order “if it finds from a preponderance of the evidence that an act or acts of
domestic violence and abuse have occurred and may again occur.” “Domestic
violence and abuse,” as defined in the statutes, includes “physical injury, serious
physical injury, sexual abuse, assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical
injury, serious physical injury, sexual abuse, or assault between family members or
members of an unmarried couple[.]” KRS 403.720(1). A DVO may restrain the
adverse party from certain conduct, including contacting or communicating with
the victim, committing further acts of domestic violence and abuse, and disposing
of or damaging any of the parties' property. KRS 403.750(1)(a)-(c). Kessler v.
Switzer, 289 S.W.3d 228 (Ky. App. 2009). Thompson’s testimony, confirming the
truthfulness of the allegations contained in the domestic violence petition, was
sufficient evidence to support the finding of the court that Thompson “more likely
than not was a victim of domestic violence.” Holland v. Commonwealth, 192
S.W.3d 433, 437 (Ky. App. 2005) (citing Commonwealth v. Anderson, 934 S.W.2d
276, 278 (Ky. 1996)).
2
Kentucky Revised Statutes.
-5-
As for the trial court’s failure to issue a specific order denying the
motion to dismiss the domestic violence petition, it is clear from the court’s action
in entering the domestic violence order that the motion to dismiss was denied.
Furthermore, Hinkle did not move for specific findings of fact as required by CR
52.01.
Next, during the hearing, Thompson alleged that Hinkle repeatedly
came to her workplace and harassed her. Hinkle acknowledged coming to the
store and chatting with Thompson, but attributed his visits to picking up photos or
buying household goods. Thus, there was evidence that Hinkle was visiting the
store. There was also proof that Hinkle had sent a letter to his children’s school
and that he had launched a website, ostensibly to tell his side of the divorce. Based
upon the foregoing recitation of evidence, the trial court did not commit clear error
in entering the domestic violence order. CR 52.01, Reichle v. Reichle, 719 S.W.2d
442 (Ky. 1986).
Finally, Hinkle alleges he was never told a “trial” was underway. The
court called the case and swore both Thompson and Hinkle. Thereafter, the court
began hearing proof in the matter. Hinkle is a retired teacher/principal. As an
educated man, who knew enough to obtain counsel for the hearing, we place
responsibility on him to understand the purpose of the hearing, as specified in the
summons he received, was “to respond to these allegations” of domestic violence.
Thus, Hinkle’s allegation of error is without merit.
-6-
For the foregoing reasons, the entry of the domestic violence order by
the Bullitt Circuit Court is AFFIRMED.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Russell R. Hinkle, pro se
Harrodsburg, Kentucky
No brief filed.
-7-
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.
