Beecham v. Com.

• Decision Date: 21 September 1983
• Citation: 657 S.W.2d 234
• Parties: Leslie Leon BEECHAM, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.
• Court: Supreme Court of Kentucky

Page 234

657 S.W.2d 234

Leslie Leon BEECHAM, Appellant, v.COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Sept. 21, 1983.

Donna Boyce Proctor, Asst. Public Advocate, Dept. of Public Advocacy, Frankfort, for appellant.

Steven L. Beshear, Atty. Gen., Virgil W. Webb III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

WINTERSHEIMER, Justice.

This appeal is from an opinion of the Court of Appeals which affirmed an order of the circuit court overruling Beecham's RCr 11.42 motion to vacate judgment.

The issues presented are that Beecham was denied due process of law because the trial court failed to appoint counsel to represent him in connection with the RCr 11.42 motion, that it was error to overrule his RCr 11.42 motion because his plea of guilty was not voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made, and that it was error to overrule his motion to vacate judgment without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

Beecham was indicted in 1976 on two counts of murder, three counts of robbery, two counts of first-degree assault and one count of criminal intent to commit robbery.On the morning of the trial, he entered a guilty plea to the murder and robbery charges.The remaining offenses were filed away.Judgment was entered on June 24, 1977, and he was sentenced to two consecutive twenty-five year terms for the murders and two concurrent twenty year terms on the robbery charges.In 1981, he filed a pro se motion to vacate judgment which was overruled without an evidentiary hearing or appointment of counsel.He appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the circuit court.In 1982, he filed a pro se motion for discretionary review in this Court which was granted.

This Court affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals and the order of the circuit court because the trial judge was not required to appoint counsel to represent Beecham in the RCr 11.42 proceedings.

Beecham contends that he requested counsel when he signed an affidavit of indigency which was attached to his motion for vacation of judgment pursuant to RCr 11.42.We disagree.Beecham concedes that his request for counsel was "somewhat obscure."The motion filed with the trial court specifically requested an evidentiary hearing, but there was no request contained in the motion that counsel be appointed at the hearing.The mimeographed form affidavit of indigency, contains a statement that the movant does not have private counsel and then in a later phrase requests counsel.It is clear from a careful examination of the motion that there was no specific request for counsel.Therefore, the trial court had no notice that Beecham desired counsel.The trial court was not required to automatically appoint counsel for an evidentiary hearing or to scour the record for a collateral request.

Pro se pleadings are not required to meet the standard of those applied to legal counsel.This Court has also determined that pro se pleadings must give at least fair notice of the claim for relief to be sufficient.Miller v. Commonwealth, Ky., 416 S.W.2d 358(1967).In this case, there was no clear request for counsel.

Nothing in RCr 11.42(5) requires that counsel be automatically appointed whether a request is made or not.The trial court is required to appoint counsel only upon request.Commonwealth v. Ivey, Ky., 599 S.W.2d 456(1980)....