Glenn Peeler Jr v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
2020 CA 000656
| Ky. Ct. App. | Jun 17, 2021Background
- In April 2012 Peeler was convicted of two counts of complicity to commit robbery and as a persistent felony offender and sentenced to 22 years; convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
- August 2013: Peeler filed a pro se RCr 11.42 post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, but that motion was not verified as required by RCr 11.42(2); the trial court denied the motion on the merits and did not address the lack of verification; Peeler’s appeal of that denial was dismissed as untimely.
- August 2016: Peeler filed a second RCr 11.42 motion that was properly verified; the trial court denied it as successive and procedurally barred; the denial was affirmed on appeal.
- December 2019: Peeler filed a pro se CR 60.02(e) motion arguing the 2013 unverified RCr 11.42 motion deprived the court of jurisdiction and rendered the 2013 and subsequent orders void, seeking reinstatement of his RCr 11.42 rights.
- April 9, 2020: Trial court denied the CR 60.02(e) motion as having no basis in law or fact; Peeler appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CR 60.02(e) relief is available because the 2013 RCr 11.42 motion was unverified and thus the court lacked jurisdiction | Peeler: the unverified 2013 motion meant the trial court lacked jurisdiction; the denial and subsequent orders are void; CR 60.02(e) should allow him to restart post‑conviction review | Commonwealth: circuit court had personal and subject‑matter jurisdiction; verification is a particular‑case requirement subject to waiver; CR 60.02 is extraordinary relief and Peeler is not entitled to it | Court affirmed denial: court had personal and subject‑matter jurisdiction; failure to verify implicated particular‑case jurisdiction which Peeler waived by delay and by later filings; CR 60.02 relief denied |
| Whether failure to verify is a jurisdictional defect that survives waiver and can be raised via CR 60.02 | Peeler: verification requirement is jurisdictional and voids prior orders | Commonwealth: verification is a procedural/particular‑case jurisdiction issue that can be waived; belated challenges cannot be rescued by CR 60.02 | Court held the verification issue was a particular‑case jurisdiction matter subject to waiver; Peeler waived it and cannot obtain CR 60.02 relief |
Key Cases Cited
- McQueen v. Commonwealth, 948 S.W.2d 415 (Ky. 1997) (movant bears burden to prove entitlement to CR 60.02 extraordinary relief)
- Nordike v. Nordike, 231 S.W.3d 733 (Ky. 2007) (distinguishes personal, subject‑matter, and particular‑case jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Steadman, 411 S.W.3d 717 (Ky. 2013) (circuit courts have subject‑matter jurisdiction over felony prosecutions; particular‑case jurisdiction may be waived)
- Hisle v. Lexington‑Fayette Urban Cty. Gov’t, 258 S.W.3d 422 (Ky. App. 2008) (challenges to later rulings are incident to the exercise of jurisdiction rather than its existence)
- Basin Energy Co. v. Howard, 447 S.W.3d 179 (Ky. 2014) (particular‑case jurisdiction is subject to waiver and courts should not raise belated defects sua sponte)
- Harris v. Commonwealth, 296 S.W.2d 700 (Ky. 1956) (CR 60.02 is an extraordinary, residual remedy for grounds not apparent on the record)