Porter v. Commonwealth
2011 Ky. LEXIS 173
Ky.2011Background
- Porter pled guilty to three counts of trafficking in a controlled substance first degree, PFO2, and two counts of drug paraphernalia; sentence total 20 years.
- Initial plea offer (12 years) was conditioned on Porter waiving his right to view the video; this was to protect the informant and ongoing investigations.
- Porter demanded to view the video; the Commonwealth transmitted the video and then offered 20 years for all charges, which Porter accepted.
- Porter moved to withdraw his guilty plea (Jan 4, 2010); trial court denied after a hearing and Porter appealed.
- Discovery order required the Commonwealth to permit inspection of tangible objects; the video existed and was disclosed to counsel; Porter argued discovery and due process violations.
- Court affirmed, holding no withdrawal error, no discovery violation, proper prosecutorial discretion in conditioning plea, and no obligation to reoffer the original deal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea withdrawal was properly denied | Porter argues the initial condition rendered plea unknowing | Commonwealth contends plea voluntary under totality of circumstances | No abuse; plea voluntary; denial affirmed |
| Whether discovery rights were violated by conditioning viewing the video | Porter claims discovery right violated by conditioning access | Commonwealth asserts no discovery violation; existence disclosed timely | No discovery violation; condition permissible; discovery adequate |
| Whether conditioning the first plea on waiving video viewing violated due process | Porter argues due process was infringed by conditioning favorable plea | Prosecutorial discretion allows such conditions to protect informant and investigations | Not a due process violation; valid prosecutorial discretion under Ruiz/Santobello/Bordenkircher |
| Whether the prosecutor's conduct was improper | Porter asserts abuse or unfair pressure | Prosecutor acted within discretion and safeguards (counsel present, informed decision) | No prosecutorial abuse; actions within prosecutorial discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957) (informant identity privilege; balancing test for disclosure)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (plea agreements require honoring terms; due process safeguards)
- Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978) (prosecutorial pressure within plea bargaining is permissible)
- Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002) (impeachment information not required before binding plea; plea bargaining lessened rights at pretrial stage)
- Moore v. Michigan, 355 U.S. 155 (1957) (counsel required; rights may be waived with knowing voluntary plea)
- Berry v. Commonwealth, 782 S.W.2d 625 (Ky. 1990) (defense had access to related materials; not exculpatory; no error)