WHITE (KENNETH) VS. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: FEBRUARY 25, 2011; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2009-CA-001340-MR
KENNETH WHITE
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM PULASKI CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE PAUL E. BRADEN, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 02-CR-00095
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CLAYTON, NICKELL, AND THOMPSON, JUDGES.
CLAYTON, JUDGE: This is an appeal of the denial of motions made pursuant to
Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42, Kentucky Rules of Civil
Procedure (CR) 60.02, and CR 60.03. Based upon the following, we affirm the
trial court’s denial.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Pulaski County Sheriff Sam Catron was gunned down on the evening
of April 13, 2002, while leaving a fish fry at the Shopville-Stab Fire Department in
Pulaski County. A motorcycle was observed leaving the scene of the shooting and
Danny Shelley was apprehended a short time later on a motorcycle. Shelley was
wearing a camouflage suit, had a rifle with a scope and a Wal-Mart receipt for a
motorcycle battery with him.
Shelley was friends with Jeff Morris, a candidate for Pulaski County
Sheriff at the time of the shooting. Morris had been introduced to the appellant,
Kenneth White, by Shelley and was helping Morris with his campaign. Shelley
was arrested for the murder of Sheriff Catron on the day of the incident and
admitted to shooting Sheriff Catron. Morris was arrested and White was arrested a
short time later and charged with complicity. Codefendants Shelley and Morris
pled guilty and agreed to testify against White.
White was convicted. The jury recommended a sentence of life
without the possibility of parole. The aggravating circumstance was that the
murder “was an intentional act and Samuel Wilson Catron was a local public
official or sheriff engaged at the time of the act in the lawful performance of his
duties.” TR II, pg. 291. White then filed a direct appeal of his conviction and
sentence. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed his conviction.
After failing on direct appeal, White filed a pro se motion pursuant to
RCr 11.42, Cr 60.02, and CR 60.03 asking that his sentence be vacated. White was
-2-
appointed counsel and an evidentiary hearing was held. The trial court denied
White’s motions, finding that he had effective assistance of counsel based upon the
legal standard. White then brought this appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under established law, in order to prevail on an ineffective assistance
of counsel claim, a movant must show that his counsel’s performance was deficient
and that but for the deficiency, the outcome would have been different. Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984).
Courts must examine counsel’s conduct in light of professional norms based on a
standard of reasonableness. Fraser v. Com., 59 S.W.3d 448, 452 (Ky. 2001). With
this standard in mind, we examine the trial court’s denial of White’s motions.
DISCUSSION
White first contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel
when his counsel failed to object to the prosecutor’s improper closing argument.
In White v. Com., 178 S.W.3d 470, 484-85 (Ky. 2005), the Kentucky Supreme
Court found the following:
Somewhat more troubling is the fact that the
prosecutor spent a significant portion of his closing
argument incorrectly arguing that Sheriff Catron’s status
as a public official was a separate aggravator and that the
jury need not find the existence of the duty condition if it
concluded that Sheriff Catron was, indeed, a public
official. Although Appellant had objected to this
interpretation of the law during the conference on the
penalty phase jury instructions, this claim simply was not
preserved because Appellant did not object to the
prosecutor’s closing argument. And, . . . the trial court
-3-
clearly contemplated that the instruction in question
presented a single aggravating factor. Though it is
possible Appellant’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s
closing argument was the result of a misunderstanding of
the trial court’s inclusion of the “public official”
language in its instruction, we cannot say that this is
sufficient to preserve the error. Having failed to register
any objection, Appellant may not retrospectively benefit
from this error.
At the evidentiary hearing, White’s counsel gave no reason why he did not
object. White now argues that, pursuant to the above finding, he was denied
effective assistance of counsel since his counsel did not object to the prosecutor’s
closing argument. We disagree.
Pursuant to the Strickland standard, set forth above, not only must the
movant show that counsel’s performance was deficient, but he must also prove that
the outcome of the trial would have been different had it not been. In this action,
the Kentucky Supreme Court specifically found that the jury was given the correct
instruction regarding the aggravating factor or “duty condition.” Based upon that
instruction, the jury found that the aggravating factor existed, thus, we find there
would have been no change in the outcome of the trial had White’s counsel
objected to the prosecutor’s closing statement.
White’s second argument is that he was denied due process when the
prosecutor misstated the law in his closing statement. He contends that “[a] claim
that the prosecutor misstated the law in closing argument is a claim of
prosecutorial misconduct.” Matheney v. Com., 191 S.W.3d 599, 606 (Ky. 2006).
In this case, however, the prosecutor had argued with the trial court regarding the
-4-
“duty condition.” While the trial court and, later, the Kentucky Supreme Court,
found that the prosecutor’s interpretation of the law was not the proper one, this
does not rise to the level of prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecutor’s closing
statement at issue was as follows:
. . .“Sam Catron was a local public official.” (quoting
from instructions.) He was sheriff. He was a local public
official. You heard from Mr. Arnold. He was a public
official. “Or, sheriff engaged in the lawful performance
of his duties.” [(quoting from instructions) (emphasis in
original).] That’s why I brought these witnesses in here
to tell you about being a public official, being elected.
You have to go out there to fish fries, you have to get out
in public, you have to meet people. He’s out there as a
local public official. He’s also out there as sheriff. He’s
in uniform. He’s got his car, he’s got his radio on. He’s
[al]ready to go 10/8 at any time. He was in the lawful
performance of his duties. You heard from the sheriff
and other expert witnesses to tell you that’s the lawful
performance of his duties. For us to say . . . You can
find that aggravator. [(ellipsis in original).] He was in
the lawful performance of his duties as sheriff or public
official. He was. That was the lawful performance of his
duties.
. . . He was out there campaigning, trying to keep his job
as sheriff or to keep his job as a local public official, and
he was gunned down for that simple reason.
I think there’s actually three aggravators that
we’ve proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt[.]
. . . you would write in here “Sheriff engaged in the
performance of his duties, local public official, it was
done for profit” if that’s what you want the sentence to
be.
Appellant’s Brief at 12-13 (quoting TE XII at 1797-98).
-5-
While this indicates a misunderstanding of the law by the prosecutor as later
determined by the Kentucky Supreme Court in White, 178 S.W.3d at 483, 484, we
find that this language does not rise to the level of prosecutorial misconduct. In a
case on direct appeal, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Com., 283
S.W.3d 690 (Ky. 2009), that closing arguments must be considered as a whole.
Further, the court will only reverse if the misconduct “is flagrant or if each of the
following are satisfied: (1) proof of defendant’s guilt is not overwhelming; (2)
defense counsel objected; and (3) the trial court failed to cure the error with
sufficient admonishment.” Id. at 704 (citing Barnes v. Com., 91 S.W.3d 564, 568
(Ky. 2002)). Thus, we find that the trial court did not err in denying White’s
motion regarding this issue.
White’s third argument is that he was denied effective assistance of counsel
when his counsel failed to move for a mistrial when Morris testified regarding
alleged statements implying White was involved with two prior murders in Lincoln
County, Kentucky. The Commonwealth filed a notice with the trial court pursuant
to Kentucky Rules of Evidence (KRE) 404(c) that it would enter evidence that
White had told Morris and Shelley that he was responsible for two murders which
occurred in Lincoln County. White’s counsel filed a motion in limine to preclude
the Commonwealth from offering this testimony into evidence. White’s counsel
argued that this would be in error pursuant to KRE 404(b). On October 23, 2003,
the trial court entered an order denying White’s motion in limine with a reservation
-6-
that it would rule on specific motions should the evidence be irrelevant or beyond
the scope of KRE 404(b).
Morris testified at trial that White had told him to watch the news one
evening when the story of the murder of two teenagers was covered. Morris stated
that White implied that the same could happen to him if he crossed White. The
trial court admonished the jury as follows:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the statement
that two teenagers turned up dead, the Court has admitted
that for the sole purpose of letting this witness testify that
the defendant made a statement. I’m going to further
inform you that I have been informed that there is no
evidence at this time that Mr. White had anything to do
with that matter.
TE IX at 1315.
We find the admonition adequately sets forth the reason for the testimony.
There was no specific testimony that White had been involved with the death of
the two teenagers and the trial judge admonished the jury as to the scope of the
testimony. We, therefore find that White’s trial counsel was not ineffective in
failing to object to the testimony.
White’s final contention is that Morris and Shelley’s statements that he was
not involved in the plot to kill Sheriff Catron warrant extraordinary relief under CR
60.02 and/or CR 60.03. While several inmates testified at White’s hearing that
Morris and Shelley had boasted to them that White was not involved in the
shooting, neither Morris nor Shelley testified to that effect. Given the credibility of
-7-
the witnesses and the fact that neither Morris nor Shelley would testify that White
was not involved, we find there is no basis for CR 60.02 or 60.03 relief in this case.
Based upon the following, we affirm the decision of the trial court denying
White’s motions pursuant to RCr 11.42, CR 60.02, and CR 60.03.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Meggan Smith
Assistant Public Advocate
LaGrange, Kentucky
Jack Conway
Attorney General of Kentucky
Jason B. Moore
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
-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.