William Harry Meece v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
529 S.W.3d 281
| Ky. | 2017Background
- In 1993 Meece killed three members of the Wellnitz family; indictments returned in 2003. Meece later gave recorded confessions during plea negotiations, then withdrew his guilty plea and was tried; in 2006 a Warren County jury convicted him of triple murder, first-degree burglary and robbery and recommended death. This Court affirmed on direct appeal in Meece v. Commonwealth, 348 S.W.3d 627 (Ky. 2011).
- Meece filed a pro se CR 60.02 motion (supplemented by counsel) alleging perjury by several Commonwealth witnesses and fraud by the lead prosecutor; he also filed an RCr 11.42 motion that remains pending in circuit court.
- The CR 60.02 motion alleged: Regina Meade (Meece’s ex-wife) lied about a plea agreement; Dell Jones mischaracterized custody/Miranda circumstances; Leondus Patrick misstated ammunition quantities; and Prosecutor Brian Wright misrepresented plea terms and committed fraud on the court.
- The trial court denied relief; the Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed whether CR 60.02 (and alternatively CR 60.03) extraordinary relief was warranted and affirmed the denial.
- The Court held CR 60.02 is extraordinary relief reserved for matters not available on direct appeal or RCr 11.42 and required Meece to show (a) reasonable certainty the testimony was false and (b) reasonable certainty the verdict would have been different if truth were known; it found Meece failed both prongs and that alleged prosecutor misconduct did not amount to fraud upon the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Meece) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Wright) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Witness perjury (Meade) | Meade failed to disclose plea deal and therefore perjured herself undermining credibility | Meade’s answers were ambiguous; defense counsel’s decision not to impeach was tactical; issue was previously litigated on direct appeal | No CR 60.02 relief; not shown she knowingly lied and issue was waived/litigated |
| Witness perjury (Dell Jones — Miranda/custody) | Jones lied that Meece was free to leave; if true, statements should be suppressed for custody/Miranda violations | Whether custody existed is a legal totality-of-circumstances question; no evidence Jones knowingly lied; issue previously litigated | No CR 60.02 relief; claim is re-litigating Miranda issue already decided |
| Witness perjury (Leondus Patrick — ammo quantity) | Patrick exaggerated ammunition purchase (1,000 rounds) which undermines ID and credibility | Discrepancy reflects memory, not proven intentional falsehood; Meece could have and did contest at trial; issue available on appeal/RCr 11.42 | No CR 60.02 relief; Meece failed to show deliberate falsity or that outcome would differ |
| Prosecutorial fraud / fraud on the court (Wright) | Wright misrepresented terms of Meece’s plea (promised "extended" visit), allowed witnesses to lie, and misled court/jury | Wright only agreed not to hinder visitation and to encourage defense counsel; any disagreement about plea terms is not extrinsic fraud; no conduct that subverted court integrity; Meece admitted he lied to obtain the visit | No CR 60.02 relief; allegations do not rise to fraud upon the court and Meece’s defense was not prevented; alternative CR 60.03 equitable relief also denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Meece v. Commonwealth, 348 S.W.3d 627 (Ky. 2011) (direct appeal affirming convictions and sentence)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 932 S.W.2d 359 (Ky. 1996) (abuse of discretion standard for CR 60.02 relief)
- Sanders v. Commonwealth, 339 S.W.3d 427 (Ky. 2011) (CR 60.02 for unknown claims not otherwise available)
- Gross v. Commonwealth, 648 S.W.2d 853 (Ky. 1983) (CR 60.02 not a substitute for direct appeal/RCr 11.42)
- Spaulding v. Commonwealth, 991 S.W.2d 651 (Ky. 1999) (perjury/newly discovered evidence standard under CR 60.02)
- McQueen v. Commonwealth, 948 S.W.2d 415 (Ky. 1997) (CR 60.02 limited to issues not raiseable on other remedies)
- Mauldin v. Bearden, 293 S.W.3d 392 (Ky. 2009) (elements for relief for fraud require prevention of defense and meritorious defense)
- Goldsmith v. Fifth Third Bank, 297 S.W.3d 898 (Ky. App. 2009) (fraud on the court is extrinsic/egregious conduct)
- Rasnick v. Rasnick, 982 S.W.2d 218 (Ky. App. 1998) (fraud upon the court defined narrowly)
- Tamme v. Commonwealth, 973 S.W.2d 13 (Ky. 1998) (argument may reference evidence admitted at trial)