Cardine v. Com.

Decision Date24 April 2003
Docket NumberNo. 2002-SC-0099-DG.,2002-SC-0099-DG.
Citation102 S.W.3d 927
PartiesJeffery CARDINE, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
Opinion of the Court by Justice GRAVES.

In 1980, Appellant, Jeffery Cardine, was convicted in the Jefferson Circuit Court of three counts of first-degree robbery and was sentenced to a total of forty years imprisonment, to run consecutive to a previous twelve-year sentence. This Court affirmed the convictions in Cardine v. Commonwealth, Ky., 623 S.W.2d 895 (1981). Appellant has filed a number of post-conviction motions, including two motions pursuant to RCr 11.42, all of which were denied by the trial court.

On September 18, 2000, Appellant filed a third RCr 11.42 motion and a CR 60.02 motion, both of which were denied by the trial court as being successive and untimely. Appellant thereafter appealed to the Court of Appeals. A 2-1 majority of the Court of Appeals panel dismissed the appeal and held that, "Because appellant received a sentence of over 20 years this Court does not have the jurisdiction of the appeal herein." The majority relied upon § 110(2)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and our decision in Skaggs v. Commonwealth, Ky., 803 S.W.2d 573, 577 (1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 844, 112 S.Ct. 140, 116 L.Ed.2d 106 (1991), wherein we commented:

We take this occasion to express our view that the Court of Appeals is without authority to review any matter affecting the imposition of the death sentence. CR 76.18(2)1, in its present form, provides for automatic transfer to this Court.

Thus, the Court of Appeals presumably reasoned that since this case does not involve a sentence of death, which would trigger the automatic transfer language of CR 74.02(2), and since Appellant's sentence was over twenty years, it was without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. This Court thereafter granted Appellant's motion for discretionary review.

The Court of Appeals has misconstrued our Skaggs, supra, decision. Skaggs merely reminded the Court of Appeals of the recent adoption of the automatic transfer rule, providing that future appeals concerning post-conviction motions in death penalty cases would be automatically transferred to this Court. Neither the rule nor the language in Skaggs deprives the Court of Appeals of authority to decide appeals of post-conviction matters in any case where the sentence...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Briggs v. Brown
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 24 Agosto 2017
    ...7; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6619(a) ; Zimmer v. State (1970) 206 Kan. 304, 477 P.2d 971, 974 ; Ky. Const., § 110 (2)(b); Cardine v. Commonwealth (Ky. 2003) 102 S.W.3d 927, 928 ; Miss. Code Ann. §§ 9-4-3(1), 99-39-25(1), 99-39-28 ; Miss. R. App. P. 22(c)(8) ; Mo. Const., art. V., § 3; Barton v. ......
  • Briggs v. Brown
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 24 Agosto 2017
    ...Ann. § 21-6619(a) ; Zimmer v. State (1970) 206 Kan. 304, 477 P.2d 971, 974 ; Ky. Const., § 110 (2)(b); Cardine v. Commonwealth (Ky. 2003) 102 S.W.3d 927, 928 ; Miss. Code Ann. §§ 9-4-3(1), 99-39-25(1), 99-39-28 ; Miss. R. App. P. 22(c)(8) ; Mo. Const., art. V., § 3; Barton v. State (Mo. 201......
  • Leonard v. Com.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 22 Enero 2009
    ...Court of Appeals, even if exclusive jurisdiction over the direct appeal of the case is proper only with this Court. Cardine v. Commonwealth, 102 S.W.3d 927, 928-29 (Ky.2003). This is so even if the defendant has previously been under a death sentence that has been commuted to a lesser sente......
  • Fowler v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 28 Mayo 2021
    ...Even though Fowler was sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment, we have jurisdiction over his RCr 11.42 appeal. Cardine v. Commonwealth , 102 S.W.3d 927 (Ky. 2003).3 By not raising them here, Fowler has waived or abandoned any other claims in his RCr 11.42 motion. See, e.g. , Hugenberg......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT