Williams v. Commonwealth
2011 Ky. LEXIS 40
| Ky. | 2011Background
- Williams, a passenger in a car, was arrested for trafficking based on 19 grams of cocaine found in the vehicle.
- During transport to the station, Williams attempted to swallow a bag containing 4.8 grams of cocaine, leading to a second trafficking charge and a tampering with physical evidence charge.
- Williams pled guilty to two trafficking counts and the tampering charge; he received a total 21-year sentence with most suspended and placed on probation with credit for time served.
- Post-conviction, Williams argued under RCr 11.42 that the dual trafficking convictions violated double jeopardy and that his attorney was ineffective for failing to raise the issue.
- The trial court denied relief, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the two trafficking charges were properly supported by separate discrete quantities in different locations, and that Williams was not prejudiced by counsel’s alleged inadequate investigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two trafficking charges violate double jeopardy | Williams contends a single course of conduct produced one offense. | Commonwealth argues interruption by arrest permits separate offenses under KRS 505.020. | Two offenses valid; dual trafficking charges upheld. |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for inadequate investigation | Counsel failed to investigate or interview witnesses due to caseload, causing prejudice in plea outcome. | No demonstrable prejudice; plea favorable to Williams; no coercion or involuntary plea proven. | No ineffective assistance; no prejudice established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fulcher v. Commonwealth, 149 S.W.3d 363 (Ky. 2004) (interruption by legal process required for multiple offenses)
- Stewart v. Commonwealth, 306 S.W.3d 502 (Ky. 2010) (arrest interrupts possession for double jeopardy analysis)
- Rashad v. Burt, 108 F.3d 677 (6th Cir. 1997) (federal double jeopardy approach; criticized in Kentucky context)
- Simpson v. Commonwealth, 159 S.W.3d 824 (Ky.App. 2005) (time/place distinction supports separate offenses)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) (ineffective assistance standard; esp. regarding plea discussions)
- Burge v. Commonwealth, 947 S.W.2d 805 (Ky. 1996) (abandoned single impulse test in favor of Blockburger/KRS 505.020 approach)
- Haight v. Commonwealth, 41 S.W.3d 436 (Ky. 2001) (necessity of complete defense investigation (overruled on other grounds later))