ROBERT E . THOMAS V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED : JANUARY 23, 2003
TO BE PUBLISHED
#uVreme Tourt of Xuntuckg
2001-SC-0806-DG
D~
ot%TEa-
ROBERT E. THOMAS
V.
_tz~
APPELLANT
ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS
2000-CA-1822
MUHLENBERG CIRCUIT COURT NO . 00-CR-0031
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE GRAVES
Affirming
On December 13, 1999, Appellant, Robert E . Thomas, entered a plea of guilty in
the Daviess Circuit Court to possession of a controlled substance in the first degree .
KRS 218A.1415 . The plea resulted from a 1998 charge which was reduced from first
degree trafficking to first-degree possession of crack cocaine, with a recommended
three-year sentence . Appellant thereafter requested placement in the Drug Court
Diversion Program . However, before the trial court ruled on Appellant's request, he was
arrested on December 24, 1999, in Muhlenberg County and charged with possession of
a firearm by a convicted felon pursuant to KRS 527.040, based on his guilty plea to the
Daviess County drug charge.
Subsequently, on January 28, 2000, the Daviess Circuit
Court approved Appellant's participation in the Drug Court Diversion Program .
On February 22, 2000, Appellant was indicted in Muhlenberg County on the
firearm possession charge. Appellant moved to dismiss the charge on the grounds that
he was not a convicted felon because at the time of his arrest he was under
consideration for the drug court program . As such, Appellant argued he had not been
"convicted" on the Daviess County drug charge. The Muhlenberg Circuit Court denied
the motion and Appellant was thereafter found guilty of possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon and sentenced to five years imprisonment . The Court of Appeals
affirmed the conviction and this Court thereafter accepted discretionary review .
Appellant first argues that the Muhlenberg Circuit Court erred in denying his
motion to dismiss the charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. It is
Appellant's contention that at the time he was arrested for possessing the firearm he
was not a "convicted felon" for purposes of KRS 527 .040, because a judgment had not
yet been entered in the Daviess County drug case. In fact, at the time of Appellant's
arrest in Muhlenberg County, his request for enrollment in the Drug Court program was
pending in the Daviess Circuit Court. That request was approved after his arrest but
prior to his indictment on the firearm charge.
In Commonwealth v. Reynolds, Ky., 365 S .W.2d 853, 854 (1963), our
predecessor court engaged in an analysis of the term "convicted" or "conviction" and
noted :
The word generally means the ascertainment of defendant's guilt by some
legal mode and adjudication that the accused is guilty. This may be
accomplished by a confession by the accused in open court, a plea of
guilty or a verdict which ascertains and publishes the fact of guilt. We
believe . . . in the majority of jurisdictions . . . the word "conviction" is not
limited to a final judgment.
Kentucky Law has recognized the equivocal nature of these terms and has held that the
meaning implicated depends upon the particular statute in question . Id . ; Kentucky
County Judge/Executive Association, Inc . v. Justice Cabine t, Department of
Corrections , Ky. App ., 938 S .W.2d 582 (1997) ; Dial v. Commonwealth , 142 Ky. 32, 133
S .W . 976 (1911) .
In denying Appellant's motion to dismiss the firearm possession charge, the trial
court, and subsequently the Court of Appeals, relied upon G race v. Commonwealth, Ky.
App ., 915 S .W.2d 754 (1996), in concluding that Appellant was, in fact, a convicted
felon by virtue of his guilty plea to the prior drug charge in Daviess County .
In Grace , supra , the defendant had pled guilty to a felony drug offense but had
not yet been sentenced when he was charged with possession of a handgun by a
convicted felon in violation of KRS 527 .040 . The Court of Appeals analogized KRS
527.040 to the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 and its definition of a "convicted" felon,
specifically examining 18 U .S .C . §922(h)(1) which prohibits possession of a firearm by
felons . The Court of Appeals concluded that for purposes of the federal act, the term
"conviction" is synonymous with the determination of guilt. Further:
If guilt is established via a guilty plea or a verdict, and nothing remains
except for imposing a sentence, the particular defendant is deemed
`convicted' for purposes of 18 U.S .C . §922 . We conclude that once the
appellant's plea of guilty was accepted by the court, and he was found by
the court to be guilty, he became a `convicted felon' for purposes of KRS
527.040 .
Grace , supra , at 756 (citation omitted) .
We believe this case is analogous to Grace, supra . At the time Appellant was
arrested in Muhlenberg County on the firearm possession charge, he had entered a
plea of guilty in the Daviess Circuit Court and was simply waiting for the court to rule on
his request to participate in the drug court program in lieu of a sentence of
imprisonment . When Appellant freely, knowingly, and intelligently entered a plea of
guilty to first-degree possession of a controlled substance, he acknowledged the fact of
having committed a crime and accepted legal responsibility for a criminal act. Thus,
Appellant's status as a "convicted felon" was established, and all that remained was the
imposition of a sentence.
The drug court diversion order entered by the Daviess Circuit Court provided, in
pertinent part:
5. The Defendant has freely, knowingly, and intelligently entered a
plea of guilty to the offense of Possession of a Controlled Substance in
the First Degree, . . . .
8. In the event the Defendant fails to successfully complete the
terms and conditions of the Daviess County, Kentucky, Drug Court
Diversion Program and the Court voids this agreement, the Defendant
understands that a sentence of three (3) years in the penitentiary may be
imposed upon him .
The order further provided that if Appellant successfully completed the program,
he could thereafter move to have his guilty plea withdrawn and dismissed . Similarly,
KRS 533.258(1) states that "If the defendant successfully completes the provisions of
the pretrial diversion agreement, the charges against the defendant shall be listed as
'dismissed-diverted' and shall not constitute a criminal conviction ."
The entry of a guilty plea and the language of KRS 533 .258(1), lead to the
logical conclusion that a convicted felon status would remain from the date of
Appellant's guilty plea on December 13, 1999, until such time, if ever, that he would
successfully complete the Drug Court Diversion Program . Until such time, the
conviction remains and Appellant does not qualify for the other benefits of the pretrial
diversion statute. At the time Appellant entered the Drug Court Diversion Program, he
had the potential to have his status as a "convicted felon" changed at some point in the
future .
However, by committing the firearm offense on December 24, 1999, he was no
longer qualified for participation in the Drug Court Diversion Program .
Next, Appellant takes issue with the Muhlenberg Circuit Court's failure to conduct
an evidentiary hearing and issue findings of fact on his suppression motion . Appellant
made an oral motion on the morning of trial to suppress statements he made to police
as well as the seizure of the handgun . Appellant argued that his statement that he had
a gun was the result of improper custodial interrogation and that the gun was the fruit of
an illegal search . Although the record contains no formal factual findings, it also
contains no written suppression motion and no request for findings.
The record
indicates that the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing in chambers, heard
testimony from witnesses, and considered all the evidence offered by the parties . After
reviewing the evidence, the trial court properly denied Appellant's suppression motion .
We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. See Partin v.
Commonwealth , Ky., 918 S .W.2d 219 (1996) .
For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals .
All concur.
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
Bruce A . Brightwell
730 West Main Street
200 Hart Block Building
Louisville, KY 40202
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE
A.B. Chandler III
Attorney General
Anitria M . Franklin
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Attorney General
Criminal Appellate Division
1024 Capital Center Drive
Frankfort, KY 40601-8204
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.