JUAREZ (ANGEL) VS. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: AUGUST 12, 2011; 10:00 A.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2011-CA-000017-MR
ANGEL JUAREZ
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM BOONE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE JAMES R. SCHRAND, II, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 05-CR-00248
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: TAYLOR, CHIEF JUDGE; ACREE AND VANMETER, JUDGES.
VANMETER, JUDGE: Angel Juarez appeals from the Boone Circuit Court’s
order denying his motion for relief pursuant to CR1 60.02. We affirm.
Juarez was arrested and ultimately indicted for committing several sexual
offenses against three minor children. Following the trial, Juarez was convicted of
sodomy in the first degree (five counts), rape in the first degree (two counts), and
1
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
sexual abuse in the first degree (three counts). Juarez directly appealed his
conviction on the basis that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress
incriminating statements he made to police officers and by permitting the child
victims to testify via closed circuit television. The Supreme Court of Kentucky
affirmed his conviction.2 Juarez then filed a pro se motion for relief pursuant to
RCr3 11.42 on the basis that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, which
the trial court denied. Juarez did not appeal the denial of the RCr 11.42 motion.
In the underlying action, Juarez moved pro se for relief under CR 60.02
alleging the trial court abused its discretion by providing instructions to the jury
which failed to factually differentiate the multiple charges against him. The trial
court denied the motion on grounds that Juarez failed to raise the jury instructions
error in his direct appeal or his motion for RCr 11.42 relief. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Juarez argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying his
CR 60.02 motion since he was deprived of his constitutional right, which requires
the trial court to provide jury instructions which factually differentiate the multiple
counts with which he was charged. We disagree.
This court reviews the denial of a CR 60.02 motion for an abuse of
discretion by the trial court. Stoker v. Commonwealth, 289 S.W.3d 592, 596
(Ky.App. 2009) (citations omitted). Such an abuse occurs if the trial court’s
2
Juarez v. Commonwealth, 2007-SC-000067-MR (Ky., May 22, 2008).
3
Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure.
-2-
decision was “arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal
principles.” Id. (citation omitted).
The mere allegation of a constitutional violation will not afford a movant
relief under CR 60.02(f) when the error could have been raised in an earlier
proceeding. Gross v. Commonwealth, 648 S.W.2d 853, 857 (Ky. 1983) (citing
Copeland v. Commonwealth, 415 S.W.2d 842 (Ky. 1967)). Indeed, CR 60.02
motions are limited to afford extraordinary relief that is not available on direct
appeal or RCr 11.42 motion. McQueen v. Commonwealth, 948 S.W.2d 415, 416
(Ky. 1997). The movant must demonstrate why such relief is appropriate. Gross,
648 S.W.2d at 856.
The procedural structure to attack a conviction in a criminal case is to
“directly appeal that judgment, stating every ground of error which it is reasonable
to expect that [the defendant] or his counsel is aware of when the appeal is taken.”
Gross, 648 S.W.2d at 857. Next, the defendant must “avail himself of RCr 11.42
. . . as to any ground of which he is aware, or should be aware, during the period
when this remedy is available to him.” Id. The final disposition of the RCr 11.42
motion, “or waiver of the opportunity to make it, shall conclude all issues that
reasonably could have been presented in that proceeding.” Id.
In the case at bar, Juarez did not raise the jury instructions error in either his
direct appeal or his motion for RCr 11.42 relief; instead, he raised it for the first
time in his CR 60.02 motion for relief. Since alleged errors in jury instructions
should be directly appealed or raised in a motion for RCr 11.42 relief, and Juarez
-3-
fails to assert any extraordinary basis to justify relief under CR 60.02, we hold that
the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion for CR 60.02
relief concerning such alleged error. See Martin v. Commonwealth, 203 S.W.3d
173, 175 (Ky.App. 2006) (holding that alleged errors in jury instructions should be
raised on direct appeal).
The order of the Boone Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Angel Juarez, Pro se
LaGrange, Kentucky
Jack Conway
Attorney General of Kentucky
Gregory C. Fuchs
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, 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.