Dwayne A. Bruce v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
2019 CA 001439
| Ky. Ct. App. | May 12, 2022Background
- In 1996 Bruce was indicted for multiple sex offenses against his adopted daughter; a jury convicted him of several counts and recommended a 270-year sentence, later reduced to 250 years after one count was vacated on remand.
- Bruce pursued repeated post-conviction relief: multiple RCr 11.42 petitions (1999 and later), CR 60.02 motions (2004 and 2017), and several appeals; prior appeals produced remands, evidentiary hearings, and multiple appellate rulings.
- The June 2017 CR 60.02 motion (denied August 8, 2018) raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, alleged suppression/subornation of evidence, disputed offense dates, and challenges to Judge William McAnulty’s later participation on appellate panels.
- The trial court denied the 2017 CR 60.02 motion as untimely and meritless; Bruce appealed to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Bruce’s claims were untimely, barred by law-of-the-case and prior collateral-review decisions, and that Bruce failed to show error or prejudice from counsel or Judge McAnulty.
Issues
| Issue | Bruce's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of CR 60.02 motion | Bruce argued the motion raised substantive errors warranting relief despite delay | The motion was filed long after judgment and prior proceedings; CR 60.02 requires a reasonable time | Denied — court found motion untimely and within trial court's discretion to dismiss under Gross |
| Successive/cumulative litigation (preclusion) | Bruce sought to relitigate claims of ineffective assistance and other errors via CR 60.02 | Issues were or could have been raised on direct appeal or in prior RCr 11.42 petitions; CR 60.02 is not a substitute for RCr 11.42 | Denied — barred by law-of-the-case and rules precluding successive collateral attacks |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (various failures) | Bruce alleged counsel failed to move to remove juror, failed to call/subpoena many defense witnesses, and mishandled evidence/witnesses | These claims were previously raised or could have been raised; prior appellate review found no reversible error or prejudice | Denied — claims previously adjudicated or not cognizable now; no prejudice shown |
| Judicial participation/recusal (Judge McAnulty) | Bruce claimed Judge McAnulty improperly participated on appellate panels after having been his trial judge | Bruce never sought recusal earlier; McAnulty did not rule on matters he had decided as trial judge and Bruce received requested relief in the mandamus actions | Denied — any recusal claim was waived and, in any event, not prejudicial or necessitated |
Key Cases Cited
- Fraser v. Commonwealth, 59 S.W.3d 448 (Ky. 2001) (grounds for remand affecting post-conviction review)
- Gross v. Commonwealth, 648 S.W.2d 853 (Ky. 1983) (CR 60.02 ‘‘reasonable time’’ requirement; CR 60.02 not a substitute for RCr 11.42)
- Inman v. Inman, 648 S.W.2d 847 (Ky. 1982) (law-of-the-case doctrine bars relitigation of decided legal questions)
- Richardson v. Brunner, 327 S.W.2d 572 (Ky. 1959) (CR 60.02 relief lies in trial court's sound discretion)
- Stoker v. Commonwealth, 289 S.W.3d 592 (Ky. App. 2009) (courts disfavor successive collateral challenges to final convictions)
- Poorman v. Commonwealth, 782 S.W.2d 603 (Ky. 1989) (recusal unnecessary where judge did not rule on matters previously decided as trial judge)
- Graves v. Commonwealth, 283 S.W.3d 252 (Ky. App. 2009) (support for denial of untimely CR 60.02 motions)