2021 CA 001425
Ky. Ct. App.Nov 9, 2022Background
- In 2011 Jeremy Caraway, then a pastor, was indicted after a 13‑year‑old parishioner (pseudonym “Sherry”) and her family discovered inappropriate texts; nine counts were originally charged.
- After trial, appeals, and partial dismissals, only Counts III (second‑degree sodomy) and V (first‑degree sexual abuse) remained; Caraway was convicted and received two consecutive 5‑year sentences (10 years total).
- In May 2021 Caraway filed a pro se CR 60.02 motion arguing the indictment and trial evidence described different locations (Loyall v. Cawood), and claiming ineffective assistance for failing to challenge jury instructions and venue.
- The Harlan Circuit Court denied relief, finding the indictment met RCr requirements, both locations lay in Harlan County (so no jurisdictional defect), and the CR 60.02 motion was untimely.
- Caraway appealed the denial; the Court of Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of indictment / venue | Indictment charged acts in Loyall but trial evidence and instructions placed acts in Cawood; this alleged mismatch invalidates conviction | Indictment met RCr 6.10; Loyall and Cawood are both in Harlan County so venue/jurisdiction unaffected; any defect waived by failing to raise it at trial | Court: No jurisdictional defect; claim waived for failure to timely raise; indictment sufficient |
| Timeliness of CR 60.02 motion | Caraway claimed he did not receive grand jury materials until 2019, explaining delay | Motion filed in 2021, eight years after final judgment; CR 60.02(d),(e),(f) require a motion within a reasonable time; delay unreasonable | Court: Motion untimely; eight‑year delay not reasonable; denial affirmed |
| Ineffective assistance (jury instructions/venue) | Counsel failed to challenge jury instructions and venue, prejudicing defense | Issues were or could have been raised on direct appeal and in prior RCr 11.42; CR 60.02 is not a substitute absent extraordinary circumstances | Court: Caraway failed to allege special circumstances or facts justifying CR 60.02 relief; claim denied |
| Appropriateness of CR 60.02 for another collateral attack | Sought relief under CR 60.02(d),(e),(f) to vacate judgment | CR 60.02 requires extraordinary relief and factual allegations showing entitlement; prior appeals and RCr 11.42 limited scope for new claims | Court: Caraway did not meet the high standard for CR 60.02; trial court’s exercise of discretion was not an abuse |
Key Cases Cited
- Gross v. Commonwealth, 648 S.W.2d 853 (Ky. 1983) (CR 60.02 relief is an extraordinary remedy and structure for collateral attack)
- White v. Commonwealth, 32 S.W.3d 83 (Ky. App. 2000) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for CR 60.02 denials)
- English v. Commonwealth, 993 S.W.2d 941 (Ky. 1999) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se filings held to less stringent standards)
- Graves v. Commonwealth, 283 S.W.3d 252 (Ky. App. 2009) (seven‑year delay in filing relief from judgment was unreasonable)
- Reyna v. Commonwealth, 217 S.W.3d 274 (Ky. App. 2007) (delay may render post‑conviction claims untimely absent extraordinary facts)
- Thomas v. Commonwealth, 931 S.W.2d 446 (Ky. 1996) (defects in indictment waived if not raised while case pending)
- McQueen v. Commonwealth, 948 S.W.2d 415 (Ky. 1997) (CR 60.02 requires allegations of special circumstances justifying vacatur)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 932 S.W.2d 359 (Ky. 1996) (trial court entitled to deference under abuse‑of‑discretion standard)