Hutson v. Com., No. 2002-CA-001603-MR.

CourtKentucky Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtTaylor
Citation171 S.W.3d 743
Decision Date26 August 2005
Docket NumberNo. 2002-CA-001603-MR.
PartiesJoseph HUTSON, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.
171 S.W.3d 743
Joseph HUTSON, Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.
No. 2002-CA-001603-MR.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
August 26, 2005.

Page 744

Elizabeth R. Stovall, Assistant Public Advocate, Department of Public Advocacy, LaGrange, KY, for Appellant.

Albert B. Chandler, III, Attorney General of Kentucky, Brian T. Judy, Assistant Attorney General, Frankfort, KY, for Appellee.

Before SCHRODER and TAYLOR, Judges; HUDDLESTON, Senior Judge.1

OPINION

TAYLOR, Judge.


This matter is before the Court on remand by the Kentucky Supreme Court per order dated September 16, 2004. The Supreme Court vacated our opinion entered October 31, 2003, and ordered us to reach the merits of the above-styled appeal. After having considered the merits, we reverse and remand.

On July 23, 1998, appellant was indicted upon the charge of first-degree sodomy. He was arraigned on August 18, 1998, and entered a plea of not guilty. Appellant was then indicted on November 12, 1998, for being a persistent felony offender in the second degree. Appellant was never arraigned nor did he enter a plea upon the second-degree felony offender charge.

On December 10, 1998, a jury convicted appellant of first-degree sexual abuse. The court then proceeded to the persistent felony offender (PFO) stage of the trial. At this time, appellant's trial counsel "objected" to going forward and stated that he was unaware of a PFO charge. He also stated appellant was never arraigned on the PFO charge and argued such omission was fundamentally unfair to appellant. The court "overruled" appellant's "objection." Appellant was eventually adjudicated a second-degree persistent felony offender, and his sentence was enhanced from five years' imprisonment to ten years' imprisonment. This appeal follows.

Appellant argues the trial court's failure to formally arraign him and to accept a plea on the PFO charge constitutes reversible error. Although this appears to be an issue of first impression in this Commonwealth, we are persuaded that an arraignment and the taking of a plea are essential requirements of a valid conviction, except where defendant waives these requirements or refuses to enter a plea. See White v. People, 79 Colo. 261, 245 P. 349 (Colo.1926); Burkus v. State, 204 Ind. 467, 184 N.E. 409 (Ind.1933); State v. Alston,

Page 745

236 N.C. 299, 72 S.E.2d 686 (N.C.1952); Fuller v. State, 70 Okla.Crim. 408, 106 P.2d 832 (Okla.Crim.App.1940); Ditto v. State, 898 S.W.2d 383...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Walton v. Commonwealth, NO. 2018-CA-000380-MR
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • 28 Febrero 2020
    ...to "clarify the holdings" in two published opinions, Terry v. Commonwealth, 253 S.W.3d 466 (Ky. 2007), and Hutson v. Commonwealth, 171 S.W.3d 743 (Ky. App. 2005) (hereafter Hutson I), and to "specifically conclude that a defendant seeking relief due to a lack of arraignment must show that s......
  • Jones v. Commonwealth, No. 06-CR-00094 (Ky. 9/18/2008), No. 06-CR-00094.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • 18 Septiembre 2008
    ...is not entitled to a new trial. A trial court's failure to formally arraign a defendant was recently addressed in Hutson v. Commonwealth, 171 S.W.3d 743 (Ky. App. 2005). In that case, Hutson was found guilty of first-degree sodomy after properly being arraigned on that charge. Id, at 744. H......
  • Hutson v. Com., No. 2005-CA-002289-MR.
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 1 Diciembre 2006
    ...no jurisdiction to enter a nunc pro tunc pretrial order and amended judgment in view of this court's decision in Hutson v. Commonwealth, 171 S.W.3d 743 (Ky.App.2005), hereafter cited as Hutson I. For the reasons discussed, we disagree and so affirm the trial court's The procedural history o......
  • Commonwealth v. Batie, 2021-CA-0580-ME
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • 13 Mayo 2022
    ...App. 1986). Equitable estoppel "serves to offset the benefit that the offending party would otherwise derive from the conduct." Akers, 171 S.W.3d at 743. We fail to see any benefit derived by the Cabinet. We also see no circumstances so exceptional they would clear the high hurdle for apply......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Walton v. Commonwealth, NO. 2018-CA-000380-MR
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • 28 Febrero 2020
    ...to "clarify the holdings" in two published opinions, Terry v. Commonwealth, 253 S.W.3d 466 (Ky. 2007), and Hutson v. Commonwealth, 171 S.W.3d 743 (Ky. App. 2005) (hereafter Hutson I), and to "specifically conclude that a defendant seeking relief due to a lack of arraignment must show that s......
  • Jones v. Commonwealth, No. 06-CR-00094 (Ky. 9/18/2008), No. 06-CR-00094.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • 18 Septiembre 2008
    ...is not entitled to a new trial. A trial court's failure to formally arraign a defendant was recently addressed in Hutson v. Commonwealth, 171 S.W.3d 743 (Ky. App. 2005). In that case, Hutson was found guilty of first-degree sodomy after properly being arraigned on that charge. Id, at 744. H......
  • Hutson v. Com., No. 2005-CA-002289-MR.
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 1 Diciembre 2006
    ...no jurisdiction to enter a nunc pro tunc pretrial order and amended judgment in view of this court's decision in Hutson v. Commonwealth, 171 S.W.3d 743 (Ky.App.2005), hereafter cited as Hutson I. For the reasons discussed, we disagree and so affirm the trial court's The procedural history o......
  • Commonwealth v. Batie, 2021-CA-0580-ME
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • 13 Mayo 2022
    ...App. 1986). Equitable estoppel "serves to offset the benefit that the offending party would otherwise derive from the conduct." Akers, 171 S.W.3d at 743. We fail to see any benefit derived by the Cabinet. We also see no circumstances so exceptional they would clear the high hurdle for apply......
  • 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