JAMES A. DOYLE v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: April 30, 1999; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
1997-CA-002530-MR
JAMES A. DOYLE
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM MCCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE RON DANIELS, JUDGE
INDICTMENT NO. 92-CR-00067
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
HUDDLESTON, MCANULTY and SCHRODER, Judges.
HUDDLESTON, Judge. James A. Doyle appeals from an order denying an
evidentiary hearing on his Ky. R. Crim. Proc. (RCr) 11.42 motion to
vacate his 20-year sentence.
We affirm.
In March 1992, Doyle was indicted on charges of firstdegree robbery, in violation of Ky. Rev. Stat. (KRS) 515.020, and
with the status offense of being a first-degree persistent felony
offender, pursuant to KRS 532.080.
On July 2, 1992, Doyle entered
a guilty plea pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91
S. Ct. 160, 27 L. Ed.2d 162 (1970), to both charges.
Under a plea
agreement, the Commonwealth recommended a sentence of 20 years'
imprisonment.
On July 31, 1992, the circuit court sentenced Doyle
in accordance with the Commonwealth's recommendation.
On May 19, 1997, Doyle, acting pro se, filed a RCr 11.42
motion to vacate his conviction asserting that he had received
ineffective assistance of counsel in that:
(1) his counsel failed
to inform the court that one of the prosecutors had represented him
in a juvenile proceeding several years prior to his indictment; (2)
his
counsel
intoxicated
failed
when
he
to
investigate
committed
the
Doyle's
claim
that
he
was
robbery
with
which
he
was
charged; and (3) counsel failed to disclose Doyle's disabling
mental condition to the court.
Had counsel done these things, he
says, it is likely he would have received a lighter sentence.
On
September
26,
1997,
after
the
Commonwealth
had
responded to Doyle's motion, the circuit court determined that it
was unnecessary to conduct an evidentiary hearing and that Doyle's
motion
should
be
denied.
The
court,
citing
RCr
11.42(10),
determined that Doyle's motion was filed too late, that it was
barred by laches, and that, in any event, Doyle received adequate
and effective assistance of counsel.
This appeal followed.
We do not agree that Doyle's motion was barred by the
three-year limitation period fixed by RCr 11.42(10).
While the
rule provides that a motion to vacate a sentence under RCr 11.42
must, with certain exceptions, be filed within three years after a
judgment becomes final, it goes on to provide that "[i]f the
2
judgment becomes final before the effective date of this rule [RCr
11.42(10)], the time for filing the motion shall commence upon the
effective date of this rule."
entered on July 31, 1992.
The judgment in Doyle's case was
RCr 11.42(10) became effective on
October 1, 1994, and that was the date on which the three-year
limitation period for filing a motion to vacate Doyle's sentence
under RCr 11.42 commenced to run.
Doyle filed his RCr 11.42 motion
on May 19, 1997, well within the three-year limitation period
imposed by RCr 11.42(10). The motion was, therefore, timely filed.
Neither do we agree with the circuit court that the
motion
is
barred
by
laches.
RCr
11.42(10)
authorizes
the
Commonwealth to rely on the equitable defense of laches "to bar a
[RCr 11.42] motion upon the ground of unreasonable delay in filing
when the delay has prejudiced the Commonwealth's opportunity to
present relevant evidence to contradict or impeach the movant's
evidence."
While the Commonwealth did assert the affirmative
defense of "the doctrine of laches," it did so on the ground that
"[t]he facts which serve as the basis for Movant's Motion have been
known to him or should reasonably have been discovered by him prior
to this date."
The Commonwealth did not allege that the delay in
filing the motion prejudiced its opportunity to present evidence to
contradict Doyle's evidence, nor did it offer any evidence by
affidavit or otherwise to establish that fact.
As a result, the
court erred in holding that Doyle's motion was barred by laches.
We thus turn to the merits of Doyle's motion.
3
Where a trial court denies a motion for an evidentiary
hearing on the merits of allegations raised in a RCr 11.42 motion,
our 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."
Ky., 411 S.W.2d 321, 322 (1967).
Lewis v. Commonwealth,
If the movant's allegations are
refuted on the face of the record as a whole, no evidentiary
hearing is required.
Hopewell v. Commonwealth, Ky. App., 687
S.W.2d 153, 154 (1985).
Doyle does not contend that but for errors of counsel, he
would not have pleaded guilty.
Instead, he contends that had
counsel brought the matters mentioned above to the attention of the
court he would likely have received a lighter sentence. Sentencing
guidelines for persistent felony offenders in the first degree are
contained in KRS 532.080, which fixes a mandatory minimum sentence
of 20 years and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment where a
defendant is adjudged guilty of either a class A or a class B
felony and of being a first-degree persistent felony offender.
Doyle pleaded guilty to Robbery in the First Degree, a class B
felony, and to being a Persistent Felony Offender in the First
Degree.
He received the minimum term of imprisonment that the
court was authorized to impose -- 20 years.
that
had
his
counsel
brought
certain
Thus, his argument
matters
to
the
court's
attention the court might have imposed a lighter sentence is
4
without merit.
Doyle does not contend that he would not have
pleaded guilty had his counsel rendered effective assistance.
The order denying Doyle's RCr 11.42 motion to vacate his
sentence is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Elizabeth Shaw
Richmond, Kentucky
A. B. Chandler III
Attorney General of Kentucky
Perry T. Ryan
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.
