TIMOTHY ADKINS v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: August 27, 1999; 10:00 a.m.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth Of Kentucky
Court Of Appeals
NO.
1997-CA-002907-MR
TIMOTHY ADKINS
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM PIKE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE EDDY COLEMAN, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 95-CR-00303
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
REVERSING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
JOHNSON, KNOX AND SCHRODER, JUDGES.
JOHNSON, JUDGE: Timothy Adkins, (Adkins) appeals from the judgment of
the Pike Circuit Court entered on May 27, 1997, that convicted him for
his third offense of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the
Influence of Alcohol (Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 189A.010(1) and
(4)(c)).
We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Adkins was arrested on September 9, 1995, and
subsequently indicted by a Pike County Grand Jury, on November
14, 1995, on one felony count and one misdemeanor count.
Count
one was for operating a motor vehicle with an alcohol
concentration of or above 0.10 or while under the influence of
alcohol or other substance which impairs driving ability (DUI),
fourth offense, a Class D felony (KRS 189A.010(1)and(4)(d)).
Count two was for operating a motor vehicle while license is
revoked or suspended for driving while under the influence, first
offense, a Class B misdemeanor (KRS 189A.090(2)(a)).
After the
trial court suppressed one of Adkins’ prior DUI convictions,
count one of the indictment was amended to DUI, third offense, a
misdemeanor.
On May 13, 1997, Adkins pled guilty to the
misdemeanor DUI charge and the misdemeanor driving on a suspended
license charge.
On October 3, 1997, at his sentencing hearing,
Adkins moved the circuit court to remand the case to Pike
District Court on the grounds that the district court has
exclusive jurisdiction over misdemeanors, and that the circuit
court lost jurisdiction of the case when the only felony charge
was reduced to a misdemeanor.
However, the circuit court denied
the motion and sentenced Adkins to twelve months in the county
jail to be probated after serving thirty days of the sentence.
This appeal followed.
KRS 23A.010 and 24A.110 vest circuit courts with
jurisdiction over felonies and district courts with jurisdiction
over misdemeanors.
Adkins claims that the circuit court lost
jurisdiction of his case when the felony charge was amended to a
misdemeanor and that the trial court acted outside its
jurisdiction when it sentenced him rather than remanding the case
to the district court for sentencing.
The Commonwealth argues
that Adkins waived his right to object to the circuit court’s
-2-
jurisdiction when he submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the
circuit court by pleading guilty to the two misdemeanor charges.
However, by entering a plea of guilty a defendant does not waive
a claim that the court lacked the power to adjudicate a charge
against him.
State v. Perank, 858 P.2d 927, 930 (Utah 1992),
citing Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 30-31, 94 S.Ct. 2098,
2103-04, 40 L.Ed. 628, 636 (1974).
Objections to jurisdiction
can be made at any time, and cannot be waived.
Commonwealth v.
Griffin, Ky., 942 S.W.2d 289, 290-91 (1997); Commonwealth Health
Corporation v. Croslin, Ky., 920 S.W.2d 46, 47 (1996); and Duncan
v. O’Nan, Ky., 451 S.W.2d 626, 631 (1970).
As to the merits of the issue, the Commonwealth relies
upon Broughton v Commonwealth, Ky.App., 596 S.W.2d 22 (1979), and
argues that when a felony count of an indictment is dismissed and
the only remaining charge is a misdemeanor, the jurisdiction
originally conferred upon the circuit court as a result of the
felony charge is retained.
However, we believe Broughton is
distinguishable on the grounds that in Broughton, the dismissal
of the felony charge occurred during the trial, whereas in the
case sub judice, the felony charge was reduced to a misdemeanor
before the trial.
In Jackson v Commonwealth, Ky., 806 S.W.2d 643 (1991),
where there were two separate indictments, one for a felony and
one for a misdemeanor, and the felony indictment was dismissed,
the Supreme Court stated:
Even had the offenses been joined in a
single indictment, then after the
-3-
Commonwealth dismissed the felony charge the
trial court should immediately have remanded
the misdemeanor to the district court. Had
this been done, all of this time, effort and
expense would have been avoided.
Justice Wintershimer, speaking for this
Court in the case of Kimbro v. Lassiter, Ky.,
648 S.W.2d 860 (1983), correctly stated the
principle involved here. He said:
The district court has exclusive
jurisdiction of a misdemeanor case
unless it is joined with a felony.
When the felony was dismissed, the
circuit court was correct in
remanding the misdemeanor charge to
the district court for trial.
Jackson, supra, at 646.
Our rules and statutes clearly provide for joining a
misdemeanor with a felony in an indictment, and conferring upon
the circuit court jurisdiction over the felony and the
misdemeanor for a trial on both charges.
Kentucky Rules of
Criminal Procedure (RCr) 6.18; KRS 23A.010 and 24A.110.
Furthermore, after the trial has begun the circuit court retains
jurisdiction over the misdemeanor charge when the only felony
charge is either reduced to a misdemeanor, dismissed, or where
the Commonwealth proves only a lesser-included misdemeanor
offense.
Broughton, supra, at 23.
However, if the felony charge
is removed before trial, whether by reduction to a misdemeanor or
by dismissal, the circuit court is required to remand the case to
the district court for further proceedings.
646.
Jackson, supra, at
We believe that Jackson requires that we reverse the case
sub judice, since in both cases the felony no longer existed
before trial, and it was at this point that the circuit court
-4-
lost jurisdiction.
Thus, we hold that the circuit court abused
its discretion when it denied Adkins’ motion to remand his case,
consisting of only two misdemeanor charges, to district court.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Pike Circuit Court is reversed
and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent
with this Opinion.
SCHRODER, JUDGE, CONCURS.
KNOX, JUDGE, DISSENTS AND FILES SEPARATE OPINION.
KNOX, JUDGE, DISSENTING: I respectfully dissent.
Under
the circumstances of this case, I do not believe the circuit
judge was required to remand these misdemeanor charges to the
district court.
While the district court indeed has exclusive
jurisdiction to make final dispositions of public offenses
denominated as misdemeanors, the circuit court may nonetheless
dispose of misdemeanors that are joined in an indictment also
charging a felony.
KRS 24A.110.
However, we have held that a
circuit court, having acquired jurisdiction by virtue of a
felony/misdemeanor joint indictment, retains jurisdiction even
where the felony is subsequently reduced to a misdemeanor.
holding, we cited with approval the following authority:
It has been held in similar cases from
other jurisdictions that where the trial
court’s jurisdiction is invoked by a felony
indictment, it is not lost by the fact that
the state subsequently reduces the charge to
a lesser included misdemeanor offense. Bruce
v. State, 419 S.W.2d 646 (Tex. Cr. App.
1967).
-5-
In so
We believe the general rule should be
applied in this situation as stated in 22
C.J.S. Criminal Law § 169:
As a general rule, where the
court has jurisdiction of the crime
for which accused is indicted,
sometimes by reason of statute, it is
not lost if on the evidence he is
convicted of a crime of an inferior
grade of which it would not have
jurisdiction originally. . . .
Broughton v. Commonwealth, Ky. App., 596 S.W.2d 22, 23 (1979).
I see no reason to distinguish this case simply because the
trial court ruled invalid a prior DUI conviction, automatically
reducing the felony charge to a misdemeanor, particularly where
Adkins then proceeded to plead guilty to all misdemeanor charges.
As noted in Commonwealth v. Ramsey, Ky., 920 S.W.2d 526 (1996),
which like the case before us, involved reduction of the charge
of felony DUI to misdemeanor DUI due to the inadmissibility of
prior offenses:
[T]he Commonwealth maintains . . . without
introduction of the prior DUI’s, the
Commonwealth will be limited to proving only
a misdemeanor which is outside the Circuit
Court’s jurisdiction. The Commonwealth has
misconstrued the issue of jurisdiction. Once
a defendant is indicted on a felony charge,
the Circuit Court has jurisdiction.
Secondly, the Commonwealth asserts that since
the result, i.e. a conviction of DUI, will
net only a misdemeanor conviction the Circuit
Court will be left without authority to
bifurcate the proceeding. Once a guilty
verdict is reached, the Circuit Court has the
authority to conduct a penalty phase,
pursuant to KRS 532.055, in which the prior
convictions may be introduced and the
appropriate sentence determined, following
proper instructions to the jury.
Id. at 528.
(Citations omitted).
-6-
Here, the circuit court properly obtained jurisdiction.
Once Adkins became convicted of the misdemeanor offense, albeit
by way of plea, I believe the circuit court had jurisdiction to
make a final disposition of the charges.
I do not read the case authority as requiring a remand
to district court.
Rather, I read the cases as simply providing
that felony charges amended to misdemeanors may be remanded.
In
Jackson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 806 S.W.2d 643 (1991), our highest
Court held that where two separate indictments were returned, one
charging a felony drug offense and the other a misdemeanor DUI
offense, the circuit court would not have jurisdiction to hear
the misdemeanor case, since it was not joined in the same
indictment charging the felony offense.
The case before us is
factually distinguishable from Jackson, in that we are addressing
a joint felony/misdemeanor indictment, not two separate
indictments.
Regardless of the dicta in Jackson upon which the
majority relies, I believe a better analysis of this case lies in
Kimbro v. Lassiter, Ky., 648 S.W.2d 860 (1983).
Kimbro involved the issue of whether remanding a misdemeanor
charge to district court, after a felony count with which it had
been joined was dismissed, constituted reversible error.
Our
highest Court said it did not, but more significantly, held that
such a remand is merely permissible:
An inherent part of the circuit court’s
jurisdiction is the authority to remand the
remaining misdemeanor. In no sense would
such a remand be an interference by a circuit
court with the authority of a district court.
It is simply an orderly disposition of the
-7-
case consistent with the exclusive statutory
jurisdiction.
It is the holding of this Court that
where a felony and misdemeanor are originally
joined but later separated, the circuit court
may remand the misdemeanor to the district
court for disposition.
Id. at 861.
(Emphasis added).
While our highest Court has said that a misdemeanor
charge may be remanded to district court when a felony charge
with which it was joined in an indictment has been dismissed, I
do not read the case law as requiring such a remand, particularly
where the felony charge has simply been amended and where the
defendant has chosen to resolve it in circuit court by way of a
plea.
Under such circumstances, I believe the circuit court
retains authority to make a final disposition of the misdemeanor
charge.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Hon. W. Sidney Trivette
Pikeville, KY
Hon. A.B. Chandler, III
Attorney General
Hon. R. Evelyn Freer
Asst. Attorney General
Frankfort, KY
-8-
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.