Roach v. Commonwealth
2012 Ky. LEXIS 137
| Ky. | 2012Background
- Roach pled guilty in 2002 to January 2001 murder and first‑degree robbery; sentenced to life without parole for 25 years.
- Roach’s direct appeal resulted in an unpublished 2004 decision; in 2004 he filed a pro se RCr 11.42 motion seeking relief with DPA assistance.
- Counsel amended the 11.42 motion in September 2008; trial court denied as untimely and barred by laches, finding no merit in the timely claims.
- Court of Appeals affirmed; Kentucky Supreme Court granted discretionary review to address relation back of amended claims and entitlement to an evidentiary hearing.
- Roach’s original claims argued involuntary plea due to counsel’s ineffectiveness; amended claims raised Holland (potential alternate perpetrator) and coercion theories; Holland claim involved gun found with Holland and a taped statement not in the file.
- Court ultimately held that new, time‑barred claims do not relate back unless tied to the same conduct/occurrence, and that Roach’s timely claims were meritless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amended RCr 11.42 motion claims relate back under CR 15.03 | Roach contends amendments relate to the same core facts as the original claims. | Commonwealth argues new claims are not tied to the original conduct/occurrence. | Relation back limited to claims arising from same core facts; new, independent claims generally do not relate back. |
| Whether the Holland claim relates back to Roach’s original claims | Holland claim concerns trial counsel’s failure to investigate an alternate perpetrator. | Holland claim involves different facts/time, not the same conduct. | Holland claim does not relate back and was properly disallowed as untimely. |
| Whether the coercion claim relates back and warrants relief | Coercion could amplify the original ineffectiveness claim. | Coercion claim does not share the same factual core as the original pleading. | Even if construed as related, the coercion claim lacks merit. |
| Whether equitable tolling applies to Roach’s untimely amendment | Equitable tolling could excuse delay due to extraordinary circumstances. | Equitable tolling not demonstrated; Roach did not diligently pursue rights. | Equitable tolling does not apply; Roach failed to show diligence or extraordinary barriers. |
| Whether, if timely, Roach’s original claims show his guilty plea was involuntary | Roach asserts plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance. | Plea voluntary per Boykin and credible colloquy; no coercion shown. | Timely claims are facially meritless; plea voluntariness supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Underhill v. Stephenson, 756 S.W.2d 459 (Ky. 1988) (CR 15.03 relation-back relevant for same core facts)
- Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (Sup. Ct. 2005) (Habeas relation back requires common core of operative facts)
- Hodge v. Commonwealth, 116 S.W.3d 463 (Ky. 2003) (CR 15 applied to RCr 11.42 amendments)
- Bowling v. Commonwealth, 926 S.W.2d 667 (Ky. 1996) (CR 15 amendments and relation back principles)
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.P.A., 130 S. Ct. 2485 (2010) (Rule 15.01–15.03 considerations to grant leave; timeliness factors)
- Pinchon v. Myers, 615 F.3d 631 (6th Cir. 2010) (Amendments raising unrelated claims do not relate back)
- Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (Sup. Ct. 2005) (Core of operative facts governs relation back (AEDPA context))
- Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (U.S. 2010) (Equitable tolling requires diligent pursuit and extraordinary circumstances)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (Plea voluntariness depends on counsel’s competent advice)
- Major v. Commonwealth, 275 S.W.3d 706 (Ky. 2009) (Tape consent/voluntariness considerations)