Pate v. Department of Corrections
466 S.W.3d 480
| Ky. | 2015Background
- Lawrence Pate was indicted (2003) for manufacturing methamphetamine, second offense (Class A felony) for an October 2002 act committed while awaiting sentencing on a prior offense.
- Commonwealth offered plea deals reducing the charge to attempt (Class C) with 5-year sentence consecutive to a Pendleton County sentence; Pate rejected based on counsel’s advice that sentences likely would run concurrently and proceeded to trial; convicted and jury recommended 20 years.
- At sentencing and trial, officials (detective, counsel, Commonwealth) represented that Pate was a non-violent offender, eligible for parole after 20% of the sentence and able to earn good-time credits.
- DOC initially classified Pate non-violent, then reclassified him as a violent offender after a 2006 statutory amendment/clarification of KRS 439.3401, which led to later parole ineligibility and loss/restriction of certain credits.
- Pate sought administrative relief, filed a declaration of rights (ex post facto claim), a motion for sentence clarification, and an RCr 11.42/CR 60.02 motion; appeals ensued and Court of Appeals remanded for an RCr 11.42 evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance limited to concurrent/consecutive advice.
- Kentucky Supreme Court reviewed: (1) whether the 2006 amendment to KRS 439.3401 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause or is a retrospective change and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion denying CR 60.02 relief.
Issues
| Issue | Pate's Argument | DOC/Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2006 amendment to KRS 439.3401(1) (violent offender definition) is an ex post facto law | Amendment reclassified Pate from non-violent to violent and retroactively increased punishment (parole delay, loss of credits) — unconstitutional | Amendment was a textual clarification; original statute always encompassed all Class A felonies as violent offenders, so no retrospective change | Not an ex post facto law — amendment was clarifying, not substantive; upheld dismissal of declaration of rights |
| Whether the pre‑2006 statute unambiguously excluded Class A felonies lacking death/serious injury (i.e., statutory interpretation/retrospective application) | Pre‑2006 wording reasonably read to require death/serious injury for all listed felonies; DOC and others relied on that interpretation | Plain meaning and legislative intent show Class A felonies were always meant to be violent offenses; 2006 only clarified text | Court reads pre‑2006 statute to include all Class A felonies as violent — amendment did not change scope |
| Whether contemporaneous construction binds DOC to its earlier, contrary internal practice | DOC’s inconsistent prior interpretations produced reliance; contemporaneous construction should bar retroactive reclassification | Contemporaneous construction doctrine requires a longstanding, consistent administrative interpretation; DOC’s practices were mixed and some offices consistently treated Class A felonies as violent | Doctrine not applied — agency inconsistency and internal mistakes cannot bind DOC to the lenient interpretation |
| Whether CR 60.02(f) equitable relief (extraordinary relief) was warranted to vacate judgment/sentence | Denial of accurate sentencing info (parole/credits) led Pate to reject plea and proceed to trial; enforcement of judgment would be a miscarriage of justice — extraordinary circumstances justify vacatur | Procedural and substantive defenses available; CR 60.02 relief is extraordinary and rarely granted | Granted: court finds extraordinary circumstances and due‑process unfairness; vacates conviction and sentence and remands for vacatur and retrial (procedural posture returns to plea offer stage) |
Key Cases Cited
- Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1981) (ex post facto analysis requires showing retrospective application and increased punishment)
- California Dep’t of Corr. v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499 (U.S. 1995) (guidance on ex post facto and credit/release changes)
- Martin v. Chandler, 122 S.W.3d 540 (Ky. 2003) (two‑part ex post facto framework cited by Kentucky courts)
- Hagan v. Farris, 807 S.W.2d 488 (Ky. 1991) (doctrine of contemporaneous construction and limits on administrative reinterpretation)
- Revenue Cabinet v. Lazarus, Inc., 49 S.W.3d 172 (Ky. 2001) (contemporaneous construction cannot be based on agency mistakes)
- Anderson v. Buchanan, 168 S.W.2d 48 (Ky. 1943) (coram nobis/extraordinary relief requires probability conviction would not have resulted if truth revealed)
- Commonwealth v. Spaulding, 991 S.W.2d 651 (Ky. 1999) (wrongful information at trial can justify CR 60.02(f) relief)