Paul E. Taylor v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
2022 CA 001046
Ky. Ct. App.Aug 17, 2023Background
- Parole officers visited Paul Taylor’s residence after an anonymous tip alleging he was selling heroin; they encountered a woman (believed to be Taylor’s wife) and two men, heard someone announce “P.O.’s here,” and observed Taylor move toward the back of the house.
- The woman told officers they could enter; officers entered, secured a warrant, and a full search produced heroin, scales, a phone, and cash; Taylor moved to suppress evidence as fruits of an unlawful entry.
- At the suppression hearing, officers testified they were given consent to enter; the trial court denied the motion orally, finding consent and alternatively reasonable suspicion to enter; Taylor reserved the suppression issue on a conditional guilty plea and the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed on the consent ground.
- Taylor filed an RCr 11.42 motion alleging ineffective assistance for failing to (1) present a security-camera video of the arrest and (2) call his wife to testify about lack of consent; he requested appointed counsel for the RCr 11.42 proceeding.
- The trial court initially appointed the Department of Public Advocacy (DPA), which moved to withdraw under KRS 31.110(2)(c); the court allowed withdrawal and later, although it granted an evidentiary hearing on the two issues, repeatedly denied Taylor’s requests for appointed counsel.
- At the hearing Taylor, his wife, and trial counsel testified (wife denied consent and said the camera had auto-deleted footage); the trial court denied the RCr 11.42 motion. On appeal, Taylor argued the court erred by not appointing counsel for the evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing to appoint counsel for an indigent movant at an RCr 11.42 evidentiary hearing | Taylor: RCr 11.42(5) and Fraser require appointment when an evidentiary hearing is needed and the movant requests counsel in writing; DPA withdrawal did not relieve court of duty once hearing was ordered | Commonwealth: DPA permissibly withdrew under KRS 31.110(2)(c); RCr 11.42 proceeding does not carry a constitutional right to counsel so appointment is not automatic | Court of Appeals: Trial court erred—appointment required once an evidentiary hearing was ordered—but error was harmless because the testimony presented addressed the issues and suppression denial would stand on reasonable-suspicion grounds; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Fraser v. Commonwealth, 59 S.W.3d 448 (Ky. 2001) (if an evidentiary hearing on an RCr 11.42 motion is required, counsel must be appointed for an indigent movant who specifically requests it in writing)
- Stamps v. Commonwealth, 672 S.W.2d 336 (Ky. 1984) (RCr 11.42 proceedings do not carry a constitutional right to appointed counsel; harmless-error analysis applies)