ROBERT DICKERSON V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED : FEBRUARY 19, 2009
D
,,Vuyrrmr (~Vurf
of
2008-SC-000074-MR
LLj) L~~ L-::~
APPELLANT
ROBERT DICKERSON
V.
rufu
ON APPEAL FROM FULTON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE THOMAS R . LEWIS, SPECIAL JUDGE
NO . 01-CR-00015 AND 07-CR-00045
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION OF THE COURT BY CHIEF JUSTICE MINTON
AFFIRMING
I . INTRODUCTION .
Robert Dickerson was indicted on new charges after we vacated his
original convictions. We reject Dickerson's claim that these new charges were a
result of prosecutorial vindictiveness. We also reject Dickerson's claim that his
right to a speedy trial was violated.
II . FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY.
Dickerson was convicted of one count of first-degree sodomy, one count
of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, one count of violating the Sex
Offender Registration Act, and of being a second-degree persistent felony
offender (PFO II) . It is not necessary to recount the lengthy and disturbing
facts that led to those convictions. Rather, for purposes of this opinion, we
merely state that we reversed Dickerson's convictions in October 2005 because
of numerous errors.'
After several continuances on remand, Dickerson eventually pleaded
guilty to one count of criminal abuse in the first degree, one count of
possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, and one count of possession of a
"[long gun]" by a convicted felon.2 Dickerson was sentenced to ten years'
imprisonment on the criminal abuse charge and a total of fifteen years'
imprisonment on the firearms charges . The sentences were ordered to run
consecutively for a total imprisonment term of twenty-five years . Dickerson
then filed this appeal as a matter of right. We affirm.
III . ANALYSIS.
Dickerson raises two arguments in this appeal. First, he claims his right
to a speedy trial was violated on remand . Second, he contends the
Commonwealth engaged in prosecutorial vindictiveness when it obtained a new
indictment containing new charges after the issuance of our 2005 opinion
reversed the original convictions . We disagree with both of Dickerson's
arguments.
Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 174 S.W.3d 451 (Ky. 2005) .
Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 527 .040, which governs possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon, does not specifically refer to a "[long gun] ." Rather, that
statute only refers to, and differentiates between, firearms and handguns . No
argument has been raised that the "[long gun]" referred to in the final judgment of
conviction is not, for purposes of KRS 527 .040, a firearm.
Ky. Const. ยง 110(2)(b) .
A. Issues Were Minimally Preserved for Appellate Review .
Before we address the merits of Dickerson's arguments, we must first
address the Commonwealth's contention that Dickerson's issues in this appeal
are not properly before us because Dickerson did .not adequately preserve his
appellate rights when he entered his guilty plea. Although the record of the
procedures below is not completely clear, we ultimately conclude that
Dickerson has preserved his right to bring this appeal.
We agree with the Commonwealth's contention that a valid,
unconditional guilty plea may constitute a waiver of many of a defendant's
appellate rights . 4 And nothing in the final judgments of conviction in question
actually reflects that Dickerson's guilty plea was conditional. But the motion
to enter guilty plea form contains the handwritten notation "Conditional" at the
top. 5 Similar handwritten notations appear on the Commonwealth's offer on a
plea of guilty and the arraignment order after Dickerson's guilty plea. In fact,
at the hearing at which the trial court accepted Dickerson's plea of guilty, there
were scant references to the fact that the plea was to be conditional. And
See, e.g., Hughes v. Commonwealth, 875 S .W.2d 99, 100 (Ky. 1994) ("The record is
undisputed that Appellant unconditionally pled guilty . The general rule is that
pleading guilty unconditionally waives all defenses except that the indictment did
not charge an offense, [Bush v. Commonwealth, 702 S.W.2d 46, 48 (Ky. 1986)] .") ;
Hendrickson v. Commonwealth, 450 S.W .2d 234, 235 (Ky. 1970) ("The effect of a
plea of guilty is to waive all defenses except that the indictment charged no offense
and to authorize the imposition of the penalty prescribed by law.") .
See Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 8.09 ("With the approval of the
court a defendant may enter a conditional plea of guilty, reserving in writing the
right, on appeal from the judgment, to review of the adverse determination of any
specified trial or pretrial motion. A defendant shall be allowed to withdraw such
plea upon prevailing on appeal.") .
Dickerson's counsel only vaguely remarked that the plea was conditional
because Dickerson "may, or may not, file an appeal of both of the indictments .
He just wants to have something general for later on, and we have agreed to
that[,]" to which the trial court simply responded, "OK, sure . OK, well you can
appeal the proceeding, and I don't have any problem with that."
The Commonwealth's preservation argument runs contrary to our
precedent. In Gabbard v. Commonwealth, a defendant's motion to enter a
guilty plea was captioned "Conditional Plea of Guilty but Mentally Ill."6 At
sentencing, defense counsel merely stated that he "would simply raise the
same objections that I raised prior to the entry of the plea and incorporate all
those objections raised by motion and preserved in the conditional plea by
reference."7 When the prosecutor indicated he was unclear about which
motions defense counsel was referring to, defense counsel stated, "the motions
I am referring to are those motions regarding the defendant's competency that
were preserved for appellate review ; I think there were three of them, preserved
for appellate review, in those proceedings."8 When the Commonwealth
contended that the issues raised in the appeal were not properly before us
because they were inadequately set forth during the trial court proceedings, we
held that the issues were sufficiently preserved for our review, although these
issues were "inartfully done," because "the Commonwealth and the trial court
887 S .W .2d_547, 550 (Ky. 1994).
Id.
Id.
were aware of the objections raised prior to the entry of the conditional plea."9
By contrast, we have refused to consider a claim presented in an appeal from a
conditional guilty plea if that issue had not been brought to the trial court's
attention and was not mentioned in the conditional guilty plea. 10
Synthesizing our precedent in this area leads to the conclusion that we
will consider issues on appeal from a conditional guilty plea only if those
issues : (1) involve a claim that the indictment did not charge an offense or the
sentence imposed by the trial court was manifestly infirm, or (2) the issues
upon which appellate review are sought were expressly set forth in the
conditional plea documents or in a colloquy with the trial court, or (3) if the
issues upon which appellate review is sought were brought to the trial court's
attention before the entry of the conditional guilty plea even if the issues are
not specifically reiterated in the guilty plea documents or plea colloquy.
In the case at hand, before the day he entered his conditional guilty plea,
Dickerson had submitted a motion to dismiss the indictments with prejudice
because of alleged prosecutorial vindictiveness and a separate motion for a
speedy trial. And the trial court was aware, or should have been aware, of the
issues raised in this appeal at the time it accepted Dickerson's conditional plea.
So we hold that Dickerson has sufficiently preserved for our review the issues
in this appeal . It would have been far better practice, of course, if the issues
9
io Lovett v. Commonwealth, 103 S.W.3d 72, 84 (Ky. 2003) ("Appellant did not raise
this issue before the trial court and did not reserve it for appeal at the time he
entered his conditional plea.").
upon which Dickerson's guilty plea were conditioned had been identified in the
record, instead of Dickerson's counsel's vague statement that Dickerson's plea
was conditional merely because Dickerson wanted to have "something general"
upon which to base an appeal. Had the issues raised in Dickerson's appeal not
been expressly raised in the circuit court, we would not have considered them
on appeal. To avoid these types of situations in the future, we urge the bench
and bar of this Commonwealth to specify in the record in conditional guilty
pleas the precise issues being reserved for appellate purposes . Such careful
preservation should eliminate uncertainty, which would inure to the benefit of
everyone involved .
B. Dickerson's Right to a Speedy Trial Was Not Violated .
As stated before, we reversed Dickerson's original convictions in October
2005 . Dickerson entered his guilty plea in September 2007, a period of almost
two years . Dickerson contends that the delay violated his right to a speedy
trial. We disagree.
We consider four factors when determining whether a defendant's right
to a speedy trial has been violated : (1) length of delay, (2) reason for the delay,
(3) the defendant's assertion of his right to a speedy trial, and (4) prejudice to
the defendant ." And the Commonwealth concedes that Dickerson timely and
adequately asserted his right to a speedy trial . So our analysis will focus on
the remaining three factors .
11
Parker v. Commonwealth , 241 S .W.3d 805, 811 (Ky. 2007), citing
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S . 514, 530 (1972) .
See, e.g.,
1 . Length of Delay.
Our opinion reversing the initial convictions was issued in October 2005 .
So the speedy trial clock did not begin to tick until that date . 1 2 Dickerson
pleaded guilty in September 2007 . Thus, the total length at issue is
approximately twenty-three months .
Although there is no bright line rule for how long a delay must be in
order to be presumptively prejudicial, we note that we have found
presumptively prejudicial delays shorter than the twenty-three month delay in
this case . 13 Although our speedy trial analysis does not end here, we find that
the delay in this case is presumptively prejudicial . 14
2 . Reason for the Delay.
In order to ascertain the reasons for the numerous delays in this case,
we must set forth the facts underlying the delays that are ascertainable from
the record . In December 2005, shortly after our order reversing Dickerson's
convictions, the charges contained in at least one of Dickerson's previous
indictments, 01-CR-00015, was set for trial in May 2006 . In April 2006,
12
13
14
See, e.g., United States v. Bizzard , 674 F.2d 1382, 1386 (11th Cir. 1982) ("The time
between a conviction and a reversal which requires retrial is clearly not counted for
speedy trial purposes.") .
See, e.g., Dunaway v. Commonwealth , 60 S .W.3d 563, 569 (Ky. 2001) (thirteen and
one-half month delay found to be presumptively prejudicial) ; Bratcher v.
Commonwealth , 151 S.W .3d 332, 344 (Ky. 2004) (eighteen month delay
presumptively prejudicial) .
The Commonwealth argues that we should not find the delay to be presumptively
prejudicial because, in its view, the delay was attributable to Dickerson's
continuance requests and changes in the officeholders of the Fulton Circuit Court
judge and Fulton Commonwealth's attorney . But those reasons for the delay
should be considered under the reason-for-the-delay prong, not the length-of-delay
prong.
Dickerson's counsel filed a motion for a continuance. That motion stated that
a continuance was appropriate because Dickerson's counsel needed to review
"volumes of documents" and "all physical evidence pertaining to this case[,]"
and because "[c]ounsel does not have the discovery provided to prior defense
counsels . . . ." In response, the trial court postponed the trial to August
2006.
In a July 2006 hearing, defense counsel stated that he was not ready for
trial because he had not received the grand jury tapes he had requested. The
Commonwealth responded that there had been a flood that had damaged the
tapes but that his office was trying to get the tapes to defense counsel. In
response, the trial court again postponed the trial to November 2006 . 15
After that new trial date was set, defense counsel requested a hearing on
a discovery matter. Meanwhile, despite the fact that he was represented by
counsel, Dickerson filed several lengthy motions on his own, including
'a
motion to dismiss the charges and a motion for a continuance, which appeared
to be premised on alleged exculpatory evidence possessed by the
Commonwealth but not provided to Dickerson or his counsel. The trial court,
by then assigned to a special judge, set a new trial date for February 2007 .
A new special judge subsequently appointed ordered the February 2007
trial to be cancelled. In February 2007, the trial court set another pretrial
15
This recitation of the events occurring at the July 2006 hearing is based upon the
Commonwealth's brief because most of the videotapes in the record are not labeled
to enable us readily to determine their contents . Importantly, Dickerson does not
dispute the Commonwealth's recitation of the July 2006 events in his reply brief.
conference for March 2007. In April 2007, Dickerson was indicted on two
counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon ; and trial was set for
September 2007 . But instead of a jury trial, Dickerson entered his conditional
guilty plea in September 2007.
It is apparent that most, if not all of the continuances were granted in
response to motions by Dickerson or his counsel. However, at least some of
the motions for continuance filed by Dickerson were due to the
Commonwealth's alleged failure to provide discovery. And the Commonwealth
admits that one employee of the Commonwealth Attorney's office was
terminated because she refused to find and copy a grand jury tape for
Dickerson. So because defense counsel should not be punished for properly
seeking to obtain from the Commonwealth all pertinent discovery before trial, it
appears that some of the delay must be attributed to the Commonwealth's
failure timely and fully to comply with its discovery obligations .
Although we certainly understand that a flood and a change in the
Commonwealth's attorney and circuit judge officeholders necessarily
engendered some delay, those factors should not have necessitated a delay of
nearly two years . After all, ultimately, it is the Commonwealth's responsibility
to ensure that cases are timely resolved . 16
16
Dunaway, 60 S.W. 3d at 570 . Indeed, the United States Supreme Court held that
"[a] more neutral reason [for a delay] such as negligence or overcrowded courts
should be weighted less heavily but nevertheless should be considered since the
ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest with the government
rather than with the defendant." Barker , 407 U.S. at 531 .
On balance, therefore, we find that the reasons for the delay weigh
slightly in Dickerson's favor.
3. Prejudice .
Turning to the heart of our speedy trial inquiry, we analyze whether the
delay caused Dickerson to suffer actual prejudice . Notwithstanding
Dickerson's assertions to the contrary, we find that he did not suffer actual
prejudice stemming from the delay.
To bolster his claim that the delay caused him to suffer prejudice,
Dickerson points to the general fact that he remained incarcerated from the
time we reversed his convictions until he entered his guilty plea. And the
United States Supreme Court has identified the prevention of "oppressive
pretrial incarceration" as an interest of a defendant that the right to a speedy
trial was designed to prevent. 17 But the record reflects that the trial court did
reduce Dickerson's bond, although Dickerson was unable to post the lowered
bond. We have forcefully rejected similar generalized claims regarding allegedly
oppressive pretrial incarceration . 18
Dickerson also makes a general claim that the passage of time could
have caused him to suffer prejudice. More precisely, Dickerson argues that it
is "not unforeseeable that memories fade and witnesses can no longer
remember what happened with accuracy. The prosecution's evidence might
Barker, 407 U.S. at 532 .
Bratcher , 151 S.W.3d at 345 ("Conclusory claims about the trauma of
incarceration, without proof of such trauma, and the possibility of an impaired
defense are not sufficient to show prejudice .") .
10
have been faulty . . . . His [Dickerson's] cross-examination could have been
less effective. And his own witnesses likely would have had less of an ability to
recall important details ." Noticeably lacking from Dickerson's brief is any
concrete allegation of prejudice . Our precedent clearly holds that speculative
and generic claims are insufficient to support a claim of prejudice . 19
4. Conclusion.
Although the delay in this case gives rise to presumptive prejudice,
Dickerson has failed to show the delay caused actual prejudice. So even
though at least some of the delay is attributable to the Commonwealth's failure
fully and timely to comply with its discovery obligations, we hold that
Dickerson is not entitled to have the charges against him dismissed.
C. There Was No Vindictive Prosecution.
Dickerson contends that the Commonwealth engaged in vindictive
prosecution when it obtained a new indictment against him sometime after we
vacated his prior convictions . We disagree.
19
Id. ("Conclusory claims about the trauma of incarceration, without proof of such
trauma, and the possibility of an impaired defense are not sufficient to show
prejudice . As we noted above, a long delay, while creating `presumptive prejudice'
sufficient to continue the Barker analysis, does not necessarily create real
prejudice to a defendant .") . See also Preston v. Commonwealth , 898 S.W.2d 504,
507 (Ky .App. 1995) ("The possibility of prejudice alone is not sufficient to support
the position that speedy trial rights have been violated . It is the burden of the
defendant to establish actual prejudice.") ; United States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U.S.
302, 315 (1986) (holding that the "possibility of prejudice is not sufficient to
support respondents' position that their speedy trial rights were violated . In this
case, moreover, delay is a two-edged sword. It is the Government that bears the
burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The passage of time may
make it difficult or impossible for the Government to carry this burden .").
Prosecutorial vindictiveness can manifest itself in two ways : actual
vindictiveness and presumed vindictiveness based upon the facts and
circumstances of the case . 20 Dickerson has not argued actual vindictiveness .
So we must focus on the presumption of vindictiveness method .
As stated previously, the record reflects that the Commonwealth obtained
a new indictment against Dickerson in April 2007 . That indictment charged
Dickerson with two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm .
Originally, Dickerson was charged with, and found guilty of, one count of being
a felon in possession of a handgun, although three firearms were found in his
residence at the time of his arrest. Our original opinion mentioned that the
trial court had admonished the jury to disregard evidence of two other
firearms; but we ultimately concluded that since so much other unfairly
prejudicial evidence had been admitted, "the trial court's admonition to
disregard all evidence about the .45 pistol and the shotgun did not unring the
bell."21 So, on remand, Dickerson moved in limine to exclude evidence of the
shotgun and pistol. About two months later, the Commonwealth obtained the
20
21
United States v. Poole, 407 F.3d 767, 774 (6th Cir. 2005) ("There are two
approaches to showing prosecutorial vindictiveness : A defendant can show actual
vindictiveness, by producing objective evidence that a prosecutor acted in order to
punish the defendant for standing on his legal rights, or the Court can find a
presumption of vindictiveness by applying the realistic likelihood of vindictiveness,
standard which focuses on the prosecutor's stake in deterring the exercise of a
protected right and the unreasonableness of his actions.") (quotation marks
omitted) .
Dickerson, 174 S .W.3d at 466 (quotation marks omitted) . We also held that the
fact that Dickerson possessed the shotgun was "irrelevant to prove the handgun
charge." Id. at 464.
12
indictment charging Dickerson with two more counts of being a felon in
possession of a firearm.
Given the peculiar facts of this case, it appears to us that the
Commonwealth sought the new indictment to resolve an evidentiary problem
that we had identified in our opinion reversing . So even assuming solely for
the purposes of argument that Dickerson has made a prima facie showing of
prosecutorial vindictiveness, the Commonwealth has successfully rebutted that
presumption that the new charges against Dickerson were a result of
prosecutorial vindictiveness by showing that "there exists objective information
in the record to justify the . . . additional charges ."22 Indeed, our original
opinion highlighted the problem inherent to the lack of charges pertaining to
the two additional firearms, a problem that the new indictment solved. We,
therefore, reject Dickerson's vindictive prosecution claim.
III. CONCLUSION .
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
All sitting. All concur.
as Poole , 407 F.3d at 776. See also id. at 777 ("[I]t is clear that the government has
adequately rebutted any presumption of vindictiveness by showing that its decision
to re-indict was not motivated by a vindictive desire to punish the defendant for
exercising his right to trial, but rather a re-evaluation of the case, in light of all the
evidence elicited during trial, subsequent jury discussions, and evidentiary rules
affecting the admissibility of relevant evidence.").
13
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
V . Gene Lewter
Department of Public Advocacy
100 Fair Oaks Lane
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Jack Conway
Attorney General of Kentuc
James Hays Lawson
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Appellate Division
Office of the Attorney General
1024 Capital Center Drive
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
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.