McGaha v. Commonwealth
Decision Date | 28 August 2015 |
Docket Number | NO. 2014–CA–000834–MR,2014–CA–000834–MR |
Citation | 469 S.W.3d 841 |
Parties | Jeffrey D. McGaha, Appellant v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Appellees |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Jeffrey D. McGaha, Pro Se, LaGrange, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Jack Conway, Attorney General of Kentucky, Jeffrey A. Cross, Assistant Attorney General, Frankfort, Kentucky
BEFORE: JONES, J. LAMBERT, AND MAZE, JUDGES.
Jeffrey McGaha, proceeding pro se, has appealed from the March 7, 2014, order of the Adair Circuit Court denying his post-conviction motion for relief pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42 without an evidentiary hearing. Because we hold that the record refutes the issues of fact McGaha raises and that he is not entitled to relief, we affirm the order on appeal.
Our Supreme Court summarized the factual history of this case in its opinion on McGaha's direct appeal, which we shall adopt:
McGaha v. Commonwealth, 414 S.W.3d 1, 3–4 (Ky.2013), as modified (Sept. 26, 2013).
On direct appeal, McGaha raised four issues, including the failure of a juror to disclose a social media relationship with the victim's wife; the jury's consideration of penalty phase issues during the guilt phase; whether excluded evidence would have supported his self-defense claim; and whether a witness should have been permitted to testify that the victim had raised a gun at him twenty-five years previously. The Supreme Court rejected each of McGaha's arguments in its opinion affirming.
In addressing the exclusion of evidence argument related to the victim's racist speech, the Court stated as follows:
Id., at 9–10. Related to testimony addressing the family's fear of the victim, the Supreme Court stated:
[McGaha] contends that the trial court improperly excluded the testimony of his fiancé and her child regarding their personal fear of Cowan because he had harassed and terrorized them. However, both witnesses testified, to a degree, regarding their fear of Cowan, and [McGaha] fails to cite us to any avowal testimony, or other means of making known the substance of the testimony that was excluded by the trial court. Thus, because of [McGaha's] failure to develop this argument sufficiently for us to undertake a meaningful review of the issue, he is not entitled to relief upon the grounds that the trial court excluded testimony of his household regarding their fear of Cowan.
Id. at 10 (footnote and citations omitted).
On August 1, 2013, McGaha filed a pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to RCr 11.42, citing ineffective assistance of counsel. In addition, he moved for appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary hearing. McGaha asserted that his trial counsel failed to question the jury about racial prejudice and racially prejudicial remarks the victim had made; failed to hire expert witnesses regarding gunshot residue and accident reconstruction; failed to raise the defense of extreme emotional disturbance (EED); failed to introduce relevant mitigating evidence during the penalty phase; failed to file a motion in limine to prevent the trial court from excluding racial issues; and failed to object to the exclusion of evidence of hate speech by the victim. McGaha also alleged that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to file a reply brief or to adequately and sufficiently brief and cite to any testimony or avowal testimony to develop his argument.
On March 7, 2014, the trial court entered an order denying McGaha's motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. This appeal now follows.
The applicable standard of review in RCr 11.42 post-conviction actions is well-settled in the Commonwealth. Generally, in order to establish a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must meet the requirements of a two-prong test by proving that: 1) counsel's performance was deficient and 2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ; accordGall v. Commonwealth, 702 S.W.2d 37 (Ky.1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1010, 106 S.Ct. 3311, 92 L.Ed.2d 724 (1986). Pursuant to Strickland, the standard for attorney performance is reasonable, effective assistance. The movant must show that his counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and bears the burden of proof. In doing so, the movant must overcome a strong presumption that counsel's performance was adequate. Jordan v. Commonwealth, 445 S.W.2d 878, 879 (Ky.1969) ; McKinney v. Commonwealth, 445 S.W.2d 874, 878 (Ky.1969).
If an evidentiary hearing is held, the reviewing court must determine whether the lower court acted erroneously in finding that the defendant below received effective assistance of counsel. Ivey v. Commonwealth, 655 S.W.2d 506, 509 (Ky.App.1983). If an evidentiary hearing is not held, as in this case, our review is limited to “whether the motion on its face states grounds that are not conclusively refuted by the record and which, if true, would invalidate the conviction.” Lewis v. Commonwealth, 411 S.W.2d 321, 322 (Ky.1967). See also Sparks v. Commonwealth, 721 S.W.2d 726, 727 (Ky.App.1986). More specifically, the Supreme Court set forth the applicable standard as follows:
2. After the answer is filed, the trial judge shall determine whether the allegations in the motion can be resolved on the face of the record, in which event an evidentiary hearing is not required. A hearing is required if there is a material issue of fact that cannot be conclusively resolved, i.e., conclusively proved or disproved, by an examination of the record. Stanford v. Commonwealth, Ky., 854 S.W.2d 742, 743–44 (1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1049, 114 S.Ct. 703, 126 L.Ed.2d 669 (1994) ; Lewis v. Commonwealth, Ky., 411 S.W.2d 321, 322 (1967). The trial judge may not simply disbelieve factual allegations in the absence of evidence in the record refuting them. Drake v. United States, 439 F.2d 1319, 1320 (6th Cir.1971).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stanfill v. Adams
...judged ineffective by hindsight, but counsel likely to render and rendering reasonably effective assistance." McGaha v. Commonwealth, 469 S.W.3d 841, 846 (Ky.App. 2015) (citing McQueen v. Commonwealth, 949 S.W.2d 70, 71 (Ky. 1997)). We conclude that this argument does not satisfy the perfor......
-
Jackson v. Commonwealth
...counsel. Hollon, 334 S.W.3d at 437. Issues that were raised and rejected on direct appeal are not "ignored issues." McGaha v. Commonwealth, 469 S.W.3d 841, 851 (Ky.App. 2015). Because appellate counsel raised the same general issue that Jackson now argues was ineffectively raised, his claim......
-
Stanfill v. Commonwealth
...judged ineffective by hindsight, but counsel likely to render and rendering reasonably effective assistance." McGaha v. Commonwealth, 469 S.W.3d 841, 846 (Ky.App.2015) (citing McQueen v. Commonwealth, 949 S.W.2d 70, 71 (Ky.1997) ). We conclude that this argument does not satisfy the perform......
-
Dye v. Commonwealth
...the lower court acted erroneously in finding that the defendant below received effective assistance of counsel." McGaha v. Commonwealth, 469 S.W.3d 841, 846 (Ky.App. 2015). During an evidentiary hearing, the lower court "isin the superior position to judge witness credibility and the weight......