HEARN (JAVON) VS. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: JUNE 3, 2011; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2009-CA-001832-MR
JAVON HEARN
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE MARTIN F. MCDONALD, SENIOR JUDGE
ACTION NO. 02-CR-001962
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING IN PART AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CLAYTON AND NICKELL, JUDGES; ISAAC,1 SENIOR JUDGE.
NICKELL, JUDGE: Javon Hearn has appealed from the Jefferson Circuit Court’s
denial of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to RCr2 11.42 and CR3
1
Senior Judge Sheila R. Isaac 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.
2
Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure.
3
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
60.02 without first convening an evidentiary hearing. For the following reasons,
we affirm in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Javon was convicted following a jury trial of murder,4 robbery in the
first degree,5 and tampering with physical evidence.6 Upon the advice of counsel,
after the jury returned its verdict, Javon entered into a sentencing agreement with
the Commonwealth whereby he would receive a sentence of life imprisonment
without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years on the murder charge, twenty
years on the robbery charge, and five years on the tampering with physical
evidence charge, all to run concurrently. Javon retained his right to appeal from
the conviction. The trial court entered a judgment of conviction and sentencing
order on July 22, 2005, in conformance with the agreement.
The Supreme Court of Kentucky unanimously affirmed Javon’s
conviction on direct appeal in an unpublished opinion.7 On February 13, 2009,
Javon filed a sixty-one page pro se motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to
RCr 11.42 and CR 60.02. He simultaneously requested he be allowed to proceed
in forma pauperis, for the appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary hearing
on his claims. On March 10, 2009, the trial court summarily denied Javon’s
4
KRS 507.020, a capital offense.
5
KRS 515.020, a class B felony.
6
KRS 524.100, a class D felony.
7
Hearn v. Commonwealth, 2005-SC-000708-MR, 2008 WL 3890035 (rendered August 21,
2008).
-2-
motion for relief, finding that the issues raised were identical to those raised and
decided in his direct appeal. This appeal followed.
Javon contends the trial court erred in denying his claims for relief
based on prosecutorial misconduct, perjury, and fraud. He also claims the trial
court erred in not finding his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate
and present witnesses who could have substantiated his alibi. It appears Javon has
abandoned the remaining issues raised in his motion for relief before the trial court
as they are not included in his brief to this Court. Therefore, we will not discuss
these other allegations of error as they are not properly before us for review.
Javon first contends the trial court erred in denying his claims for
relief based on prosecutorial misconduct, perjury, and fraud. Our review of the
record reveals that, contrary to Javon’s assertion, his arguments are merely
restatements of the arguments heard and decided in his direct appeal. “It is an
established principle that this Court [Court of Appeals] will not address an issue
which was raised in a direct appeal or which should have been raised in a direct
appeal.” Brown v. Commonwealth, 788 S.W.2d 500, 501 (Ky. 1990). See also
Baze v. Commonwealth, 23 S.W.3d 619, 626 (Ky. 2000). Additionally, RCr 11.42
motions are “limited to the issues that were not and could not be raised on direct
appeal.” Hodge v. Commonwealth, 116 S.W.3d 463, 468 (Ky. 2003). As Javon
raised the issues of prosecutorial misconduct, perjury and fraud on direct appeal,
he is now prohibited from attempting to re-litigate those issues in this postconviction proceeding.
-3-
Next, Javon argues his counsel was ineffective in failing to
investigate, interview or subpoena three potential alibi witnesses—his mother,
brother, and future mother-in-law. He argues that had counsel presented testimony
from these witnesses “it is probable that [he] would have been acquitted.” He
claims all three of these witnesses would have corroborated his story to police
regarding his whereabouts at the time of the victim’s death and undermined the
credibility of his accomplice, the Commonwealth’s chief witness against him.
The trial court made no mention of this issue in its order denying
Javon the relief he sought. Further, the trial court did not convene an evidentiary
hearing on Javon’s claims, and we are unable to conclude from the record before
us whether trial counsel investigated or interviewed the purported alibi witnesses.
Because Javon’s claims are not refuted on the face of the record, the trial court
should have held an evidentiary hearing to explore the matter. See generally
Stanford v. Commonwealth, 854 S.W.2d 742 (Ky. 1993); Sparks v.
Commonwealth, 721 S.W.2d 726, 727 (Ky. App. 1986) (citing Hopewell v.
Commonwealth, 687 S.W.2d 153, 154 (Ky. App. 1985)). Thus, we must remand
this case for an evidentiary hearing on the limited issue of whether counsel
investigated the potential alibi witnesses. The trial court may then use its
discretion in determining whether Javon’s claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel has merit and whether relief is warranted.
-4-
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm in part and remand this matter to
the Jefferson Circuit Court for an evidentiary hearing on the limited issue of
whether trial counsel investigated the potential alibi witnesses.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
M. Brooke Buchanan
Assistant Public Advocate
Frankfort, Kentucky
Jack Conway
Attorney General of Kentucky
Jeanne Anderson
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.