Filed: Apr. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 17, 2015
Summary: NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION KRAMER , Judge . Charles R. Stanfill, Jr. appeals the Calloway Circuit Court's order denying his RCr 1 11.42 motion to vacate his sentence. After reviewing the record, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing because there was nothing on the face of the record showing that the requirements of Faretta were met. We decline to review Stanfill's remaining claims because the outcome of those claims will be based in part upon the circuit court's findings co
Summary: NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION KRAMER , Judge . Charles R. Stanfill, Jr. appeals the Calloway Circuit Court's order denying his RCr 1 11.42 motion to vacate his sentence. After reviewing the record, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing because there was nothing on the face of the record showing that the requirements of Faretta were met. We decline to review Stanfill's remaining claims because the outcome of those claims will be based in part upon the circuit court's findings con..
More
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
OPINION
KRAMER, Judge.
Charles R. Stanfill, Jr. appeals the Calloway Circuit Court's order denying his RCr1 11.42 motion to vacate his sentence. After reviewing the record, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing because there was nothing on the face of the record showing that the requirements of Faretta were met. We decline to review Stanfill's remaining claims because the outcome of those claims will be based in part upon the circuit court's findings concerning the Faretta requirements.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Following a jury trial, in which Stanfill proceeded with hybrid representation,2 Stanfill was convicted of: (1) possession of anhydrous ammonia in an unapproved container with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine; (2) first-degree possession of a controlled substance; (3) use of drug paraphernalia; and (4) manufacturing methamphetamine. Additionally, another charge with which Stanfill had been indicted, i.e., possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, was severed from the counts that went to trial. He entered an Alford3 plea to that charge, which was conditioned on his right to appeal.
Stanfill filed a direct appeal from the trial court's judgment on the issues that went to a jury trial, as well as from a CR4 60.02 motion he had filed. This Court affirmed his convictions for possession of anhydrous ammonia in an unapproved container with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine; manufacturing methamphetamine; and use of drug paraphernalia, and affirmed the denial of his CR 60.02 motion. However, this Court vacated Stanfill's conviction for first-degree possession of a controlled substance on the basis that it was a violation of his right against double jeopardy. See Stanfill v. Commonwealth, Nos. 2008-CA-001718-MR, 2009-CA-000803-MR, 2010 WL 1253223, *1, *10 (Ky. App. Apr. 2, 2010) (unpublished).
Stanfill then filed his RCr 11.42 motion and a motion for an evidentiary hearing. The circuit court denied Stanfill's RCr 11.42 motion without holding an evidentiary hearing.
Stanfill now appeals, contending that: (1) he received the ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to ensure that the requirements of Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975),5 were met before Stanfill proceeded with hybrid representation; (2) he received the ineffective assistance of counsel when defense counsel unreasonably stipulated to all scientific evidence and physical exhibits; (3) he received the ineffective assistance of counsel when defense counsel failed to object to jury instructions that denied Stanfill a unanimous verdict resulting in a double jeopardy violation; and (4) the circuit court should have held an evidentiary hearing concerning these RCr 11.42 claims.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In a motion brought under RCr 11.42, "[t]he movant has the burden of establishing convincingly that he or she was deprived of some substantial right which would justify the extraordinary relief provided by [a] post-conviction proceeding. . . . A reviewing court must always defer to the determination of facts and witness credibility made by the circuit judge." Simmons v. Commonwealth, 191 S.W.3d 557, 561 (Ky. 2006), overruled on other grounds by Leonard v. Commonwealth, 279 S.W.3d 151, 159 (Ky. 2009). An RCr 11.42 motion is "limited to issues that were not and could not be raised on direct appeal." Id. Pursuant to RCr 11.42(5), if there is "a material issue of fact that cannot be determined on the face of the record the court shall grant a prompt hearing. . . ."
III. ANALYSIS
The only issue that we will get to in the present case is Stanfill's first claim, i.e., that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to ensure that the requirements of Faretta were met before Stanfill proceeded with hybrid representation. On the face of the record before us, there is nothing to indicate that proceedings consistent with Faretta took place; consequently, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing and further consideration regarding this claim.6
Due to the fact that the analysis of Stanfill's remaining arguments will be based in part upon the decision regarding the Faretta requirements, we will not consider Stanfill's remaining arguments at this time.
Accordingly, the order of the Calloway Circuit Court is reversed and the case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing and further consideration of Stanfill's Faretta claim.
ALL CONCUR.
