A.M., A CHILD UNDER EIGHTEEN v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: FEBRUARY 16, 2007; 2:00 P.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2006-CA-000164-DG
A.M., A CHILD UNDER EIGHTEEN
v.
APPELLANT
ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FROM WHITLEY CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE PAUL BRADEN, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 04-XX-00004
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
REVERSING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: COMBS, CHIEF JUDGE, DIXON AND VANMETER, JUDGES.
DIXON, JUDGE: This Court granted discretionary review of an order of the Whitley
Circuit Court denying Appellant's motion for a belated appeal that was filed after the
circuit court sua sponte dismissed Appellant's direct appeal from the district court. We
now reverse and remand the matter to the trial court.
On April 29, 2004, A.M., a minor, was charged in the Whitley District
Court with being a habitual truant and being beyond the control of his mother. On May
4, 2004, A.M. appeared and entered a plea of not guilty. He was thereafter placed on
house arrest pending adjudication of the matter.
On May 25, 2004, counsel moved to dismiss the habitual truancy petition
on jurisdictional grounds. Following a “detention hearing,” the district court found A.M.
in contempt and sentenced him to thirty days in detention. On June 29, 2004, A.M. was
released to his mother and the remaining twenty-three days' detention was probated.
However, on October 5, 2005, A.M. was again found in contempt and sentenced to two
weeks in detention. Notice of appeal was thereafter tendered on October 12, 2004, and
an order allowing A.M. to proceed in forma pauperis was entered on October 21, 2004.
A.M.'s case was assigned to attorney Thomas Collins, who mailed his entry
of appearance and request for records to the court clerk on October 27, 2004. However,
Collins determined that he did not have all of the tapes that he needed to proceed and that
an extension of time was necessary. He thereafter drafted a request for a thirty-day
extension and enlisted the assistance of an attorney in the London DPA office to file the
extension motion on November 22, 2004.1 Unbeknownst to Collins, the motion was
never filed.
Collins thereafter filed his statement of appeal with the Clerk's office on
December 22, 2004. In April 2005, Collins filed a motion to substitute A.M.'s current
counsel. On November 2, 2005, A.M.'s counsel filed a motion to review or reverse the
district court's contempt order, on the grounds that the Commonwealth's failure to file a
counterstatement should be deemed a confession of error. The Commonwealth did not
1
The statement of appeal would have been due on the same day.
2
file a response to the motion or appear at the hearing. Nevertheless, on November 21,
2005, the circuit court sua sponte dismissed A.M.'s appeal, ruling that it was not timely
perfected.
On November 30, 2005, counsel filed a motion to alter or amend the order
of dismissal, to grant an enlargement of time to file the statement of appeal or,
alternatively, to grant a belated appeal. Again, the Commonwealth neither responded nor
appeared at the hearing. The circuit court denied the motion on December 21, 2005.
This Court thereafter granted discretionary review on April 13, 2006.
Both parties herein are in agreement that the Kentucky Supreme Court's
decision in Wine v. Commonwealth, 694 S.W.2d 689 (Ky. 1985), is controlling and
entitles A.M. to have his appeal reinstated. The Court therein held:
Our courts are compelled to abide by the decisions of the
United States Supreme Court which has held in unmistakable
terms that when a state authorizes an appeal from a
conviction in a criminal case, it cannot deny an appeal to an
indigent. Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100
L.Ed. 891 (1956). Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83
S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963), held that, in a first appeal,
an indigent appellant in a criminal case must be supplied with
an attorney, and Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 105 S.Ct. 830,
83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985), held that due process requires an
appellant in a criminal case to be provided with effective
assistance of counsel. In Evitts v. Lucey, the United States
Supreme Court noted that states may enforce procedural rules
in a criminal case with sanctions against an attorney rather
than dismissing the appeal of the client.
3
It seems abundantly clear from the decisions of the United
States Supreme Court that State rules of procedure, however
important they may be to the orderly administration of justice,
cannot be allowed to frustrate an appeal of an indigent
defendant who has been denied effective assistance of
counsel.
Although the law is still developing as to what constitutes
ineffective assistance of counsel in the constitutional sense, it
cannot be doubted that the failure of counsel to file an
appellate brief which results in the dismissal of an appeal
constitutes ineffective assistance. It is as if no appeal had
been taken. In such a case, the appeal must be reinstated
unless the conduct of counsel has been condoned by,
agreed to, or is in some way attributable to the client.
Wine, supra, at 695 (Emphasis added). See also Moore v. Commonwealth, 199 S.W.3d
132 (Ky. 2006); Thompson v. Commonwealth, 736 S.W.2d 319, 321 (Ky. 1987) (“It is
clear beyond cavil that if Thompson's right of appeal has been lost by the negligence of
counsel, he is entitled to relief.”).
The facts in this case are not in dispute. A.M.'s right of appeal was lost
solely due to the negligence of his prior counsel. As such, he is entitled to a belated
appeal.
This matter is remanded to the Whitley Circuit Court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ALL CONCUR.
4
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Gail Robinson
Frankfort, Kentucky
Gregory D. Stumbo
Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
Rickie L. Pearson
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.