Sanders v. Commonwealth, 2011 Ky. LEXIS 82

Appellant Sanders killed the Boone Variety Store proprietor and a customer in 1987; both victims were shot in the back of the head.
He admitted the shootings; trial evidence linked him to the killings; insanity was his sole defense at trial.
Sanders was convicted of murder and robbery and sentenced to death after a jury trial.
On direct appeal, this Court affirmed, noting overwhelming evidence of guilt; US Supreme Court denial followed in 1991.
Sanders pursued post-conviction relief under RCr 11.42 in 1993; trial court denied relief in 1999; our 2002 decision overruled parts of that ruling.
After finality of the RCr 11.42 ruling, Sanders filed a federal habeas petition; it was stayed pending exhaustion of state remedies later pursued as CR 60.02 proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of special-judge appointment	Sanders contends Judge Payne was unconstitutionally appointed or improperly noticed.	Commonwealth argues Chief Justice delegated appointment authority properly; notice was insufficiently challenged but reviewed for constitutionality.	Appointment valid; notice issue reviewed but does not reverse.
Ineffective assistance of direct appeal counsel	Sanders claims direct-appeal counsel failed to raise numerous trial and sentencing issues.	Commonwealth asserts Hollon controls; retroactivity limits relief; issues exhausted or not cognizable here.	Claim barred by Hollon’s prospective application; no relief in CR 60.02; potential vindication only via federal habeas.
Ineffective assistance of RCr 11.42 counsel	Sanders argues 11.42 counsel was ineffective for failing to raise certain evidentiary and trial-ineffectiveness claims.	Hollon prohibits claims of appellate-counsel performance in 11.42 proceedings; no equivalent remedy here.	Affirmed; no relief for ineffective assistance of 11.42 counsel.
CR 60.02 relief merits and procedural posture	Sanders seeks extraordinary relief under CR 60.02(f) for numerous claims not previously raised or exhausted.	Most grounds could have been raised earlier; the motion is effectively a successive 11.42 motion; not extraordinary.	CR 60.02 relief denied; motion deemed an impermissible successive 11.42 motion; no extraordinary grounds shown.

Sanders v. Commonwealth, 801 S.W.2d 665 (Ky.1990) (direct appeal affirmation with noting overwhelming evidence)
Sanders v. Commonwealth, 89 S.W.3d 380 (Ky.2002) (RCr 11.42 post-conviction ruling; scope later clarified)
Hollon v. Commonwealth, 334 S.W.3d 431 (Ky.2010) (revives ineffective assistance claims on appeal via RCr 11.42; prospective only)
Hicks v. Commonwealth, 825 S.W.2d 280 (Ky.1992) (disfavored; largely overruled by Hollon)
Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (U.S.1985) (right to effective counsel on first appeal as of right)
Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (U.S.2000) (extended right to effective counsel on direct appeal)
Butler v. Commonwealth, 473 S.W.2d 108 (Ky.1971) (scope of post-conviction relief principles; succession to RCr 11.42)
Fraser v. Commonwealth, 59 S.W.3d 448 (Ky.2001) (prohibits improper use of CR 60.02 as successive relief)
Gross v. Commonwealth, 648 S.W.2d 853 (Ky.1983) (CR 60.02 structure and coram nobis lineage)