COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL v. RODNEY MATTINGLY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: NOVEMBER 1, 2002; 2:00 p.m.
TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
2001-CA-001540-MR
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY,
DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE CONTROL
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE DOUGHLAS M. GEORGE, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 98-CR-00137
v.
RODNEY MATTINGLY
APPELLEE
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
COMBS; GUIDUGLI, AND SCHRODER, JUDGES.
SCHRODER, JUDGE:
The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control,
in its posture as a victim, appeals an order of expungement in a
criminal case which the Department caused to be initiated against
its former employee, Rodney Mattingly.
Attorney General has standing to appeal.
We opine that only the
Hence, we dismiss the
alleged victim’s appeal.
Appellee, Rodney Mattingly, was employed by appellant,
the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”) as an
investigator.
Mattingly was terminated from the ABC in 1998 due
to alleged criminal behavior related to his duties as an ABC
investigator.
As a result of this alleged conduct, Mattingly was
indicted by the Marion County Grand Jury for bribery of a public
servant.
Mattingly appealed his termination from the ABC to the
Commonwealth of Kentucky Personnel Board.
An agreement was
reached between the ABC, Mattingly, and the Marion County
Commonwealth Attorney to resolve both the criminal and personnel
actions, whereby Mattingly agreed to withdraw his appeal to the
Personnel Board and the ABC agreed to the Commonwealth’s
dismissal of the indictment.
Both actions were subsequently
dismissed as agreed.
Thereafter, Mattingly moved, pursuant to KRS 431.076,
to expunge all records in the aforementioned criminal case.
In
an order dated May 21, 2001, and entered May 23, 2001, the Marion
Circuit Court granted Mattingly’s motion.
On June 4, 2001, the
ABC filed a “Motion of Victim to Set Aside Order of Expungement,”
in support of which the ABC stated that it had not received
notice of Mattingly’s motion, which it would have opposed.
A
hearing was held on the ABC’s motion to set aside on June 18,
2001.
On July 9, 2001, the court entered an order denying the
ABC’s motion.
ABC appeals from the May 23, 2001, and July 9,
2001, orders.
Initially, Mattingly did not contest standing when the
trial court considered the “Motion of Victim to Set Aside Order
of Expungement,” and ABC contends it has been waived.
However,
we cannot ignore such an obvious error and shall consider the
error per CR 61.02.
ABC contends that it has standing to bring this appeal
because it is a party and a victim, with a personal stake in the
-2-
outcome of the controversy.
KRS 431.076 provides for
notification of the Commonwealth Attorney (or county attorney) of
a motion for expungement.
victim be given notice.
The statute does not require that a
Therefore, per the statute, the
Commonwealth Attorney represents the state’s interest, and it
follows that another agency or person who has an interest must
therefore go through the Commonwealth Attorney.
Accordingly, in
the present case, only the Commonwealth Attorney would have
standing to challenge the expungement order in the trial court.
KRS 15.020 requires that appeals from criminal or penal actions
be sought by the Attorney General.
Therefore only the Attorney
General has standing to appeal to this Court.
Sims v.
Commonwealth, 116 Ky. 1, 74 S.W. 1097 (1903).
ABC additionally contends that because the criminal
action was initiated by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, that the
ABC, as a department of the Commonwealth, is a party and entitled
to pursue an appeal.
This argument must also fail under KRS
15.020 which specifically states, in pertinent part “[t]he
Attorney General is the chief law officer of the Commonwealth of
Kentucky and all of its departments,” and “[h]e shall appear for
the Commonwealth in all cases in the Supreme Court or Court of
Appeals wherein the Commonwealth is interested, . . .”
For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal of the
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control is dismissed.
ALL CONCUR.
-3-
ENTERED:
November 1, 2002
/s/ Wilfred Schroder
JUDGE, COURT OF APPEALS
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Rebecca W. Goodman
Frankfort, Kentucky
John L. Smith
John H. Harralson, III
Louisville, Kentucky
-4-
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.