Caitlyn M. Conway v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 2024-CA-0044

Caitlyn M. Conway was indicted, along with two co-defendants, for murder, multiple counts of first-degree robbery, and burglary related to incidents between September 15 and October 5, 2014. Conway’s role included luring victims for her co-defendants to assault and rob; one incident resulted in a victim’s death.
Patton, one codefendant, pled guilty and agreed to testify against Conway. Conway was present at this plea hearing and, two days later, entered her own guilty plea to amended charges with agreed sentences totaling 26 years.
Conway did not file a direct appeal or a timely motion for ineffective assistance of counsel under RCr 11.42. Instead, in 2023—years after sentencing—she filed a CR 60.02/60.03 motion seeking to amend the final judgment, arguing ineffective counsel, prosecutorial coercion, and mitigation issues.
The circuit court denied Conway’s post-conviction motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding her claims either untimely, unsupported, or procedurally improper.
Conway appealed, largely repeating old arguments and raising new claims not presented below; the appellate court addressed only preserved issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutor and Defense Coercion/Threatening False Testimony	Conway claimed her plea was coerced by threats her co-defendants would testify against her, though no such statements existed	Record shows Patton gave detailed testimony implicating Conway, which she heard; her claims are contradicted by the record	No merit; her claims are refuted by the record, and she knowingly entered her plea
Failure to Assert EED Defense	Counsel failed to pursue an Extreme Emotional Distress defense, which could have reduced liability	Issues of ineffective assistance must be raised under RCr 11.42, not CR 60.02; also, no evidence to support EED was presented	Not proper for CR 60.02; even otherwise, claim lacks factual support and would not have yielded a better result
Voluntary Intoxication as Mitigation	Conway was intoxicated during the crimes, and her counsel should have raised this as a mitigating factor	There was no penalty phase due to guilty plea; no evidence presented that intoxication negated intent or elements of offenses	Not grounds for relief under CR 60.02; not factually or procedurally supported
New Ineffective Assistance Claims on Appeal	Counsel failed to consult mitigation specialist, investigate thoroughly, or request certain instructions	Raised for first time on appeal and should have been brought via RCr 11.42	Not considered; not preserved and procedurally out of scope for CR 60.02

Gross v. Commonwealth, 648 S.W.2d 853 (Ky. 1983) (CR 60.02 relief is limited to extraordinary circumstances not available via RCr 11.42 or direct appeal)
Brown v. Commonwealth, 932 S.W.2d 359 (Ky. 1996) (CR 60.02(f) analogous to writ of coram nobis—must allege facts rendering original trial an absolute denial of justice)
Meece v. Commonwealth, 529 S.W.3d 281 (Ky. 2017) (CR 60.02 not a substitute for raising claims in prior proceedings)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)