SHEMWELL (TIMOTHY J.) VS. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: NOVEMBER 12, 2010; 10:00 A.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2008-CA-001742-MR
TIMOTHY J. SHEMWELL
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM OHIO CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE RONNIE C. DORTCH, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 04-CR-00039
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: TAYLOR, CHIEF JUDGE; LAMBERT, JUDGE; HENRY,1 SENIOR
JUDGE.
LAMBERT, JUDGE: Timothy Shemwell appeals from an order of the Ohio
Circuit Court directing that his real property be forfeited due to its use in the
commission of a violation of KRS Chapter 218A. After careful review, we affirm.
1
Senior Judge Michael L. Henry sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the Chief Justice
pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and Kentucky Revised Statutes
(KRS) 21.580.
In an opinion rendered August 27, 2009, the Kentucky Supreme Court
affirmed Shemwell’s convictions arising from his manufacture of
methamphetamine on his real property. Shemwell v. Commonwealth, 294 S.W.3d
430 (Ky. 2009). A summary of the facts set forth in the opinion states:
On February 25, 2004, the Ohio County Sheriff's
Department responded to a domestic dispute call at
Appellant's residence. Upon arriving there, Deputy
Danny Kessinger found Appellant, Appellant's ex-wife
Betty Shemwell, Appellant's friend Reva Roeder, and
Roeder's son. Deputy Kessinger also found evidence of a
suspected methamphetamine lab. After getting
permission from Appellant, a thorough search of the
property ensued. In Appellant's garage, lithium batteries,
batteries with lithium strips removed, and two small
canisters containing hemostats and suspected marijuana
seeds were found. Inside a shed, the police discovered a
five-gallon bucket containing lithium strips and a pink
powder which later tests revealed to contain ephedrine or
pseudoephedrine. Directly outside the shed, starter fluid
cans with holes in the bottom were found. On a tractor, a
wooden spoon with methamphetamine residue was
located. Also scattered around Appellant's property were
a blender, scales, plastic baggie corners, a two-quart
container containing ammonia, a two-quart container
containing a two-layered substance consisting of liquid
on the top and a sludge of pseudoephedrine on the
bottom, two cans of fuel in a trash can, two containers of
salt, drain cleaner, tubing, and a propane tank containing
ammonia. Inside Appellant's house, police discovered
nine empty Sudafed packets inside a coat pocket and
inside Reva Roeder's purse, a wet coffee filter with
methamphetamine residue.
Id. at 432.
Shemwell was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine under KRS
218A.1432(1)(a), possession of anhydrous ammonia in an unapproved container
-2-
with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine (KRS 250.489), possession of
methamphetamine precursor (KRS 218A.1437), possession of marijuana, less than
eight ounces, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
While Shemwell’s direct appeal of his convictions was pending, the
Commonwealth sought the forfeiture of his real property. On February 14, 2008,
the prosecutor and Shemwell’s counsel appeared before the trial judge to argue the
Commonwealth’s forfeiture motion. During this hearing, the Commonwealth
argued in favor of forfeiture, and Shemwell argued that the trial judge should
refrain from ordering the forfeiture of Shemwell’s real property until after the
appeal of his criminal convictions was final. The trial court granted the
Commonwealth’s motion and ordered the Commonwealth to prepare the order of
forfeiture.
By order entered February 19, 2008, the trial judge directed Shemwell’s real
property to be forfeited. The real property at issue consists of two tracts, the first
containing approximately five acres and the second 1.91 acres. On February 26,
2008, Shemwell filed a motion to reconsider the forfeiture order and to hold the
matter in abeyance until he had “exhausted all appeals in the criminal case related
to his property.” After a hearing on March 27, 2008, the trial court denied
Shemwell’s motion to reconsider in an order dated April 1, 2008.
In April 2009, this Court granted Shemwell’s motion for a belated appeal
and allowed him to appeal the trial judge’s forfeiture order. This appeal now
follows.
-3-
On appeal, Shemwell concedes that forfeiture is appropriate in this case but
argues that forfeiture is only appropriate for the areas where manufacturing
methamphetamine occurred. Shemwell asks this Court to reverse the Ohio Circuit
Court’s order of forfeiture and enter a new order permitting only forfeiture of his
garage and shed.
The Commonwealth argues that Shemwell did not present this argument to
the trial court in his motion to reconsider, and therefore it is not preserved for
appeal. We agree. At the trial court level, Shemwell argued that the
Commonwealth’s forfeiture motion should be held in abeyance until his criminal
appeals were exhausted. Now, Shemwell argues to this Court that forfeiture
should be limited to the exact location where the violation of KRS Chapter 218A
occurred. Because this argument was never presented to the trial court, the issue
was not preserved, and we cannot review it for error. See Kennedy v.
Commonwealth, 544 S.W.2d 219, 222 (Ky. 1977) (“The appellants will not be
permitted to feed one can of worms to the trial judge and another to the appellate
court.”).
Shemwell has not asked this court to review his case under Kentucky Rules
of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 10.26 for palpable error. Even had he done so, we do
not find his arguments to be meritorious. In its decision, the Kentucky Supreme
Court noted evidence of Shemwell’s manufacturing operation was found in his
garage, his shed, “[d]irectly outside the shed,” “[o]n a tractor,” “scattered around
[his] property[,]” and “[i]nside [his] house[.]” Shemwell, 294 S.W.3d at 432.
-4-
Despite evidence being found in so many places on Shemwell’s property, he
argues that only his shed and garage should be subject to forfeiture. Shemwell
offers no legal support for this argument whatsoever. Thus, we find Shemwell’s
argument to be without merit, even were we to review it at this juncture.
Accordingly, we affirm the April 1, 2008, order of the Ohio Circuit Court
denying Shemwell’s motion to reconsider.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Karen Shuff Maurer
Assistant Public Advocate
Frankfort, Kentucky
Jack Conway
Attorney General
Jeffrey A. Cross
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.