Hayes v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 26 August 2021
• Docket Number: 2019-SC-0455-MR
• Citation: 627 S.W.3d 857
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
• Parties: Michael V. HAYES, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee

627 S.W.3d 857

Michael V. HAYES, Appellant

v.COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee

2019-SC-0455-MR

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

AUGUST 26, 2021

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Julia Karol Pearson, Assistant Public Advocate.

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Daniel J. Cameron, Attorney General of Kentucky, Thomas Allen Van De Rostyne, Assistant Attorney General.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE HUGHES

Although a defendant who enters an unconditional guilty plea typically waives his right to appeal, this Court has recognized some exceptions to the general rule, one of which is the appealability of so-called sentencing issues. Windsor v. Commonwealth , 250 S.W.3d 306 (Ky. 2008). This case requires us to consider again the scope of such sentencing issues, and more specifically whether a defendant who has entered an open plea can subsequently appeal on the grounds that his statutorily-authorized sentence should be reversed because the trial court did not give adequate consideration to mitigation evidence. Finding first that this type of appeal exceeds our current post-guilty-plea precedent, we further decline to extend the sentencing exception to encompass a dispute about the weight to be accorded mitigation evidence. Accordingly, we hold Appellant Michael V. Hayes has waived his right to appeal his sentence but recognizing perhaps some uncertainty regarding appealability in these circumstances, we also address the merits of his appeal. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The police were called to Javon Dawson's apartment in early November 2013. They found Dawson dead on the floor, her throat cut. The investigation led to an interview with Hayes, a neighbor who usually bought drugs from Dawson's cohabitating boyfriend. At the time of the murder, Dawson's boyfriend was in jail and Dawson was selling drugs to raise money for his bail. The day before Dawson's murder, a neighbor heard Hayes banging on Dawson's door, asking to buy $100 worth of crack on credit. Although Hayes initially implicated another neighbor in the murder, he soon admitted killing Dawson.

A Jefferson County grand jury indicted Hayes for murder, robbery in the first degree, and tampering with physical evidence. The Commonwealth gave notice that it would seek the death penalty based upon the aggravated circumstance that Hayes murdered Dawson during the commission of robbery in the first degree. The Commonwealth's Offer on a Plea Agreement, which Hayes accepted, described the facts of the case as follows:

On November 3, 2013, the defendant entered ... the residence of ... Dawson and her three children, and murdered Ms. Dawson with a 12-inch long kitchen knife. Ms. Dawson's three children were asleep in the apartment when this happened. The defendant was thereby able to steal items from the victim including her purse, which was recovered in his apartment. When officers arrived at his apartment during a neighborhood canvas, he hid in his hall closet a bag containing the purse and its contents, the knife, and some bloody clothing.

The Plea Agreement also stated that the plea

is being entered as an open plea, without agreement between the parties as to penalty. The defendant stipulates that, given that he committed the offense of murder while he engaged in the commission of a robbery in the first degree, this is an aggravating circumstance under KRS 532.025(2)(a)(2) and gives rise to the entire penalty range for capital murder as set out in KRS 532.030(1)^{[1 ]} and outlined above [(20 to 50 years, or life, or life without parole, or life without parole for 25 years, or death)]. Therefore, the parties may argue for any penalty in that range and the Court will have sentencing discretion for the entire range of penalties.

The circuit court accepted Hayes’ open guilty plea to the three charges. Its written order noted Hayes’ stipulations and that the Commonwealth made no sentencing recommendation on the charges.

To assist the circuit court in the sentencing decision, in addition to the presentence investigation report prepared by the probation officer,² the Commonwealth filed a Statement of Facts and Hayes filed a Sentencing Memorandum and a mitigation consultant's report. The Commonwealth also presented testimony from two of Dawson's sisters and entered a victim impact statement into the record during the sentencing hearing. Hayes did not call any witnesses and did not testify on his own behalf. In response to Hayes’ request, the circuit court noted that it had already reviewed Hayes’ memorandum and the mitigation report but would do so again prior to making its sentencing decision.

The Sentencing Memorandum and the mitigation report both conveyed to the trial court that Hayes had relatively little criminal history—and specifically no violent crimes. Moreover, Hayes’ current crimes for which he was to be sentenced were related to 1) his never-treated cocaine and crack cocaine drug addiction which was triggered by the 2006 deaths of his first fiancée and an infant daughter, and 2) his being under the influence of drugs at the time of the offenses. The two filings described Hayes’ use of drugs and alcohol prior to using crack and cocaine. The memorandum described his early drug and alcohol use as insignificant. Hayes began using marijuana around twelve or thirteen years of age and started drinking alcohol around age eighteen, using both drugs and alcohol a few times a week until 2006, the year he turned twenty-six years old and lost his fiancée and child in a motor vehicle accident.

At the penalty hearing, in accordance with the Sentencing Memorandum, defense counsel requested the circuit court to also consider Hayes’ remorse, acceptance of responsibility for the crimes, respect for the judicial proceedings throughout his six years before the court, and his ability to be rehabilitated. In his Sentencing Memorandum Hayes requested a sentence of twenty years for the murder, ten years for the robbery, and one year for the tampering with physical evidence, with the sentences to run concurrently. The Commonwealth, recounting the brutal crime, closed its argument asking that Hayes be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

The circuit court recessed to deliberate and then returned, announcing its sentencing decision. The trial court began by reviewing Hayes’ open plea and Hayes’ awareness that the trial court could sentence him to any of the possible sentences, a circumstance to which the parties again expressed agreement. The circuit court explained that Hayes deserved mitigation,³ but acknowledged that murder with a knife is intentional, deeply personal, and violent. The judge described the murder as one of the most gruesome things he had seen and expressed confidence that a jury would have strongly considered the death penalty. That being so, the circuit court concluded the only mitigation that made sense was the reduction of Hayes’ sentence from the maximum allowed sentence, death, to life without possibility of parole. The circuit court stated it recognized Hayes’ respectful, post-offense behavior and his owning up to his actions, and that his mitigation is a chance to continue to live. The circuit court also decided the appropriate sentence on the robbery was twenty years and on the tampering charge was five years, with the sentences running concurrently for a total sentence of life without the possibility of parole. The July 30, 2019 Judgment of Conviction and Sentence reflected that the court imposed the sentences "having given due consideration to the pre-sentence investigation report, and to the nature and circumstances of the crime, and to the history, character and condition of the Defendant." See KRS 533.010. Hayes then appealed his sentence to this Court.

ANALYSIS

Hayes’ primary issue on appeal is whether the circuit court abused its discretion when it imposed upon him a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Hayes complains the trial court said nothing about the impact of his marijuana abuse

at age thirteen and drinking alcohol at age eighteen and did not weigh the impact on his life of the deaths of his fiancée and child. He argues that the trial court's consideration of mitigation was so abbreviated that it equates to a refusal to consider mitigation, violating Lockett v. Ohio , 438 U.S. 586, 605, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (holding death penalty cases require individualized consideration of mitigating factors). The Commonwealth argues that this Court should not reach the merits of this appeal due to Hayes’ express waiver of his right to appeal.⁴ Alternatively, the Commonwealth asserts that Hayes’ argument is without merit and his sentence should be affirmed. We agree with the Commonwealth that Hayes’ complaint about receiving a statutorily allowed sentence following his open plea is not an issue which may be appealed, but even if it were appealable, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when sentencing Hayes to life without parole.

Contemporaneously with accepting the plea offer, Hayes moved to enter a guilty plea, stating his understanding that by pleading guilty, he waived his right to appeal his case to a higher court. Hayes now cites Hughes v. Commonwealth , 875 S.W.2d 99, 100 (Ky. 1994), for the premise that his sentencing issue may be considered on appeal because "all defendants have the right to be sentenced after due consideration of all applicable law."⁵ We agree with the Commonwealth that Hughes and the authority upon which it relies do not apply in this case. We disagree with Hayes that Webster v. Commonwealth , 438 S.W.3d 321, 326-27 (Ky. 2014), supports his appellate claim as preserved.

In Hughes , the defendant raised the issue whether the trial court properly considered all applicable sentencing options before imposing a twenty-year sentence for the crimes of criminal attempt to commit murder and robbery in the first degree following his...