Opinion of the Court by Justice NOBLE.
The Appellant James Jackson was charged with felony drug trafficking and several misdemeanors, including possession of a handgun by a minor, in the juvenile session of the McCracken District Court. The district court certified him as a youthful offender and transferred him to the circuit court, where he entered a guilty plea and was sentenced as an adult. He now seeks to collaterally attack his conviction on the grounds that the transfer was improper and, as a result, the circuit court never acquired jurisdiction over him or his case. Because the district court's transfer order was legally sufficient on its face, and no other jurisdictional defects appear in the record, this Court concludes that the transfer was proper, and the circuit court had jurisdiction.
In 2004, a little more than a month before his sixteenth birthday, the Appellant was taken into custody after police and his juvenile case worker found him in possession of cocaine, marijuana, and a handgun. The officer filed a juvenile petition alleging that Appellant was a public offender and charging Appellant with first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance, specifically cocaine, which at the time was a Class C felony; and possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a handgun by a minor, all of which are misdemeanors. Despite the handgun charge, the trafficking offense was not specifically listed as firearm enhanced on the juvenile petition.
At a juvenile detention hearing that followed, the arresting officer described the events surrounding the arrest. As part of that testimony, he stated that the juvenile case worker, who was supervising Appellant's probation on an earlier adjudication, searched Appellant and found a loaded gun in his pants.
Upon hearing this, the district judge interrupted the examination of the witness to ask "Should these charges be firearm enhanced?" The following discussion then took place between the judge and the Assistant County Attorney:
No transfer motion, oral or written, was actually made at that time. Nevertheless, the judge scheduled a transfer hearing to be held about a month later. At that time, she made the following notation on the docket sheet:
Despite this notation, no transfer motion was subsequently filed and the charges were never amended to specifically list them as firearm enhanced. Only the district court's docket sheets list the charges as "firearm enhanced."
At the transfer hearing, held before a different judge, the court heard from the arresting officer and the juvenile case worker. After hearing the proof and giving the attorneys a chance to speak, the judge made the following oral findings:
At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge made the following notation on his docket sheet, which was signed:
The grand jury indicted Appellant on first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance with a firearm enhancement and the same three misdemeanors he had been charged with in the district court. The indictment described the trafficking charge as a Class B felony, presumably based on the firearm enhancement statute, KRS 218A.992. In the circuit court, Appellant entered into a plea bargain in which the Commonwealth recommended a ten-year sentence (the minimum for a class B felony) in exchange for Appellant's plea of guilty to all four charges. The circuit court accepted Appellant's guilty plea and sentenced him in accordance with the plea agreement.
Appellant was scheduled for "adult resentencing" under KRS 640.030(2) to take place soon after he turned eighteen (in 2006). Shortly before the hearing, Appellant's counsel moved under RCr 11.42 and CR 60.02 to vacate his conviction on the ground that he was improperly certified as a youthful offender and transferred from the district court to circuit court, which, he claimed, lacked jurisdiction. The circuit court denied the motion to vacate and ordered that Appellant serve the remainder of his sentence in the custody of the Department of Corrections.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the circuit court properly had jurisdiction over Appellant's case, noting that the circuit court had general subject-matter jurisdiction over youthful offender cases and that the only real question was whether the court had jurisdiction over this particular case based on the district court's findings at the transfer hearing. The court concluded that issue was really a question of due process, based on one of its own prior decisions, since the case was at the collateral attack stage, and required "an error of such magnitude to render the judgment of conviction so fundamentally
Despite a partial victory at the Court of Appeals, Appellant sought discretionary review by this Court of the issue of the circuit court's jurisdiction over his case, which was granted. The Commonwealth has not sought discretionary review of the Court of Appeals' decision to remand for a determination of voluntariness of the guilty plea.
Appellant argues that his conviction must be vacated because his transfer to circuit court violated his due process rights. Specifically, he claims that the district court never made the findings required under KRS 635.020 and KRS 640.010(2)(a), and that no such finding could have been made in light of the record or the law. In essence, he asserts that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction. He also claims that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to object to the transfer both at the district and circuit courts. The Commonwealth responds by claiming that Appellant's unconditional guilty plea waived all his claims.
The Commonwealth is correct that the general rule in this state is that an unconditional guilty plea waives all defenses except that the indictment does not charge a public offense. See, e.g., Thompson v. Commonwealth, 147 S.W.3d 22, 39 (Ky.2004) ("[T]he entry of a valid guilty plea effectively waives all defenses other than that the indictment charged no offense."). This waiver covers most claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, including those Appellant has raised in his brief. See, e.g., Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973) ("We thus reaffirm the principle recognized in the Brady trilogy: a guilty plea represents a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in the criminal process. When a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea." (referring to Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970); McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970); and Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U.S. 790, 90 S.Ct. 1458, 25 L.Ed.2d 785 (1970))). Instead, after a guilty plea, a defendant "may only attack the voluntary and intelligent character of the guilty plea by showing that the advice he received from counsel was not within the standards set forth in McMann." Id. (citing McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 770, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970)); see also
In fact, it was this law on which the Court of Appeals relied in remanding the case to the trial court to determine the voluntariness of Appellant's guilty plea. It is worth noting again that the Commonwealth did not seek review of that decision, despite its suggestion in response to Appellant's present ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim that there is ample evidence to suggest that the guilty plea was, in fact, voluntary, while also conceding that the Court of Appeals' remedy was appropriate. Regardless, the issue of voluntariness is not before this Court, and the waivers stemming from Appellant's guilty plea bar this Court from reaching the other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that he raises until such time as his guilty plea could be found to be involuntary.
Still, the Commonwealth's suggested approach to the waiver's effect is an oversimplification. It hinges on an incomplete statement of the rule that was crafted to address the most common scenario, not to outline the whole black-letter law on the subject. While there is no question that "a guilty plea reduces the scope of potentially appealable issues," Windsor v. Commonwealth, 250 S.W.3d 306, 307 (Ky. 2008) (quoting Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 480, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000)), it does not narrow the field to the single issue claimed by the Commonwealth. As the U.S. Supreme Court has noted, "A guilty plea ... simply renders irrelevant those constitutional violations not logically inconsistent with the valid establishment of factual guilt and which do not stand in the way of conviction if factual guilt is validly established." Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61, 62-63 n. 2, 96 S.Ct. 241, 46 L.Ed.2d 195 (1975) (per curiam). The situation is markedly different when "the claim is that the State may not convict petitioner no matter how validly his factual guilt is established," where, for example, the charge would violate double jeopardy. Id. "[A] plea of guilty to a charge does not waive a claim that judged on its face the charge is one which the State may not constitutionally prosecute." Id.
Though the Supreme Court was speaking specifically of alleged constitutional errors, the same reasoning extends to other errors that are not implicated by the establishment of a defendant's guilt. Thus, in addition to failure of the indictment to charge a public offense, issues that survive a guilty plea include competency to plead guilty, certain types of sentencing issues, and whether the trial court had general subject-matter jurisdiction. Windsor, 250 S.W.3d at 307. In fact, this Court's Rules of Criminal Procedure, which the Commonwealth fails to cite, specifically state: "Lack of jurisdiction or the failure of the indictment or information to charge an offense shall be noticed by the court at any time during the proceedings." RCr 8.18 (emphasis added).
Despite his characterization of it as a due-process claim, the Appellant's fundamental claim is that the district court's transfer order was invalid and thus the circuit court never acquired jurisdiction over his case. If he is correct, then his guilty plea did not waive the issue, as noted above. This conclusion is further supported by the rule that subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be born of agreement,
Ordinarily, the circuit court has no subject matter jurisdiction over juvenile cases. The circuit court has "general jurisdiction," which means "original jurisdiction of all justiciable causes not exclusively vested in some other court." KRS 23A.010. But the district court, which is admittedly "a court of limited jurisdiction," has been given "original jurisdiction in all matters specified in KRS 24A.110 to 24A.130." KRS 24A.010. And KRS 24A.130 states: "The juvenile jurisdiction of District Court shall be exclusive in all cases relating to minors in which jurisdiction is not vested by law in some other court." KRS 24A.130 (emphasis added); see also KRS 610.010(1) ("Unless otherwise exempted by KRS Chapters 600 to 645, the juvenile session of the District Court of each county shall have exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerning any child living or found within the county who has not reached his or her eighteenth birthday or of any person who at the time of committing a public offense was under the age of eighteen (18) years, who allegedly has committed a public offense prior to his or her eighteenth birthday, except a motor vehicle offense involving a child sixteen (16) years of age or older.").
Thus, the district court has original, mostly exclusive jurisdiction over juvenile matters. The circuit court cannot hear juvenile matters unless given that authority by another statute. Juveniles who violate the law are deemed to be status or public offenders, depending on the offense or violation charged. KRS 610.010(1)-(4). They are not punished as criminals, though they may be placed in custody at times. Instead, the primary aim when dealing with juveniles is to "promote the best interests of the child through providing treatment and sanctions to reduce recidivism and assist in making the child a productive citizen by advancing the principles of personal responsibility, accountability, and reformation, while maintaining public safety, and seeking restitution and reparation." KRS 600.010(2)(e).
Under some circumstances, however, a juvenile can be deemed a youthful offender. See KRS 635.020; 640.010. Youthful offenders are transferred to the circuit court, KRS 640.010(2), where they may be tried like adults, KRS 610.015, and "shall be subject to the same type of sentencing procedures and duration of sentence, including probation and conditional discharge, as an adult convicted of a felony offense" with some exceptions, KRS 640.030. A circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction only over youthful offender cases, not public or status offender cases. Thus, a circuit court acquires jurisdiction over a case in which a juvenile is accused of violating the penal law only if the juvenile is alleged to be a youthful offender and the district court transfers the child to circuit court.
Before a juvenile can be deemed a youthful offender and transferred to the circuit court, however, the district court must first hold a preliminary hearing and decide whether the child falls into any of the categories laid out in KRS 635.020 and whether probable cause to believe certain facts exists. See KRS 640.010(2). Even after making these findings, in most cases the court must still consider a list of factors, such as the seriousness of the offense,
This Court, however, has held that a defendant's failure to challenge the factual prerequisites to the circuit court's jurisdiction in a youthful offender case at the district and circuit courts is ordinarily a waiver. See Commonwealth v. Davis, 80 S.W.3d 759, 760-61 (Ky.2002); Commonwealth v. Thompson, 697 S.W.2d 143, 144 (Ky.1985). As a result, except in certain circumstances, these "issue[s] cannot be raised on appellate review." Davis, 80 S.W.3d at 760; see also Thompson, 697 S.W.2d at 144 ("The utter failure to preserve any inadequacies of the juvenile procedure, if any in fact existed, is fatal to raising the question on appellate review."). Rather than being jurisdictional matters, questions about the adequacy of the transfer proceedings were held to be due process questions, which are largely waived if raised for the first time on appeal. Thompson, 697 S.W.2d at 144; Davis, 80 S.W.3d at 760. (Logically, that waiver extends to raising the issues for the first time in a collateral proceeding.) The Court hinted that the only claims about the adequacy of the proceedings to survive such a waiver were those going to whether the transfer order was facially valid. Thompson, 697 S.W.2d at 145 (deciding whether the transfer order was invalid); Davis, 80 S.W.3d at 760-61 ("While Thompson indicates that a facially invalid transfer order may be challenged for the first time on appeal, no such argument is made here." (citations omitted)).
Though they do not expressly state it, these cases maintain a subtle distinction between a court's true subject-matter jurisdiction and procedural irregularities or outright failings that only indirectly go to jurisdiction. This distinction is clearer in other areas of the law. See, e.g., Nordike, 231 S.W.3d at 738. In those other areas, the Court has distinguished between general subject-matter jurisdiction and jurisdiction over a particular case. Subject matter jurisdiction is "the court's power to hear and rule on a particular type of controversy." Id. at 737. Wherever the line between these two types of jurisdiction falls in juvenile cases, what is clear in Davis and Thompson is that the waiver rule does not apply when the transfer order is facially insufficient.
As stated in Davis, "Thompson indicates that a facially invalid transfer order may be challenged for the first time on appeal." Davis, 80 S.W.3d at 760-61; see also Schooley, 556 S.W.2d at 915-16 ("Circuit courts also have general jurisdiction to try juvenile felony offenders if there has been a valid transfer...."), quoted with approval in Davis, 80 S.W.3d at 761. Davis declined to address the merits of the issue because "no such argument" was raised in that case. 80 S.W.3d at 761. Thompson addressed the issue directly, holding that the transfer order in that case was not facially invalid. In Thompson, this Court reversed the Court of Appeals, which had held that "the order merely
The question in this case, then, is whether the district court's order in this case was facially deficient. In making this inquiry, we consider both the judge's order, which was handwritten on the docket sheet, and his oral findings made on the record. Cf. Harden v. Commonwealth, 885 S.W.2d 323, 324 (Ky.App.1994) (considering both oral and written findings); KRS 640.010(2)(c) (requiring court to "state on the record the reasons for the transfer").
Under the present statutory scheme,
In essence, this provision requires that the court find whether the juvenile satisfies any of the criteria for transfer laid out in KRS 635.020. And KRS 635.020 allows transfer proceedings against offenders who fall into several categories that reflect combination of three different factors: type of offense, age of the offender, and prior offenses. For example, if the child is sixteen or older, has been charged with a class C or D felony, and has previously been adjudicated a public offender, transfer proceedings can be initiated. KRS 635.020(3).
The Appellant argues that the district judge opined only on the discretionary considerations listed in KRS 640.010(2)(b), but this characterization shortchanges what the judge did. The very first thing the judge found was "probable cause ... that the felony offenses as charged were committed and that Mr. Jackson committed those." This tracks, in part, the language in KRS 640.020(2)(a) about mandatory findings. The judge then turned explicitly to the factors listed in subpart (b) of the statute, discussing the proof as to each factor in turn. Thus, it is apparent that the court actually made two sets of findings, one concerning mandatory findings, and one about the discretionary factors under subpart (b). The Appellant's contention that the judge simply ignored the mandatory findings is incorrect.
The next question, then, is whether the district judge's findings were sufficient on their face to justify transfer. This Court
As Appellant notes, it is not entirely clear under which KRS 635.020 criterion the court was proceeding. The court never explicitly identified a criterion, which by itself makes appellate review difficult. But the issue was first framed as whether the trafficking charge was "firearm enhanced," which narrows the possibilities to only two of the criteria: the one about use of a firearm, KRS 635.020(4), and the one about class A and B felonies, KRS 635.020(2).
That the court was proceeding under the firearm provision in subsection (4) is unlikely, since that provision bypasses KRS 640.010 and mandates transfer upon the mandatory finding. That the judge's first set of findings track KRS 640.010(2)(a) and that he made findings under the discretionary factors in KRS 640.010(2)(b) suggest that he was proceeding under the KRS 635.020(2) criterion instead. Regardless, this Court need not resolve whether the district court properly transferred Appellant under subsection (4) because the transfer was proper under subsection (2).
To transfer under KRS 635.020(2), the court must find by probable cause that the juvenile committed "a capital offense, Class A felony, or Class B felony" and "had attained age fourteen (14) at the time of the alleged commission of the offense." But transfer proceedings may only begin "[i]f a child [is] charged with a capital offense, Class A felony, or Class B felony, [and] had attained age fourteen (14) at the time of the alleged commission of the offense." Id. (emphasis added). The Appellant objects to application of this criterion because he claims he was not charged with a Class B or higher felony.
Appellant's claim that he was not charged with a Class B felony turns on the specific language used in the various controlled—substance statutes under which he was charged. The basic statute defining and classifying first-degree trafficking in effect when Appellant was first charged stated that "[a]ny person who violates the provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall ... [f]or the first offense be guilty of a Class C felony." KRS 218A.1412(2).
(Emphasis added.)
Appellant argues that because the firearm enhancement statute does not have any effect until the person "is convicted," he could not have been charged with an enhanced version of trafficking. He also notes that the statute only elevates the penalty, implying that it has nothing to do with the classification of the offense at the charging stage. In support of his claim, he cites language noting that "KRS 218A.992 is nothing more than a sentencing statute reflecting the dangerous nature of the crime perpetrated by an armed criminal." Kotila v. Commonwealth, 114 S.W.3d 226, 248 (Ky.2003), abrogated on other grounds by Matheney v. Commonwealth, 191 S.W.3d 599 (Ky.2006) (quoting Adams v. Commonwealth, 931 S.W.2d 465, 468 (Ky.App.1996)).
At first glance, this argument is appealing. Unlike other sentencing enhancements, the firearm enhancement specifically requires that the defendant be convicted before the penalty is enhanced. This language differs substantially from that used in some other sentencing enhancements, such as having committed the same offense previously. That enhancement, for example, requires only that the defendant have violated the substantive portion of the statute. See, e.g., KRS 218A.1412(2), In such cases, the mere allegation in the charge clearly controls the classification of the offense.
Appellant's argument, however, breaks down under close examination. First, it ignores the fact that the various provisions classifying offenses were drafted primarily with sentencing in mind, not charging. Thus, it is unlikely that the language was chosen to have a certain effect when the concern is with what class of felony was charged. From the perspective of sentencing—that is, after guilt has been admitted or proved and a conviction thus obtained—it does not matter whether an offense was charged as a certain class of felony or another. Indeed, there are very few instances where the classification of an offense from the perspective of charging matters. One of these, obviously, is a juvenile transfer proceeding. The only other that quickly springs to mind is whether an adult charge will be kept in district court (i.e., a misdemeanor charge) or bound over to the grand jury and circuit court resolution (i.e., a felony charge).
An example involving the firearm enhancement statute in this latter circumstance illustrates the more serious flaw in Appellant's argument: it will lead to absurd results. Take the example of an adult charged with first-offense trafficking in less than eight ounces of marijuana. That offense is a Class A misdemeanor. See KRS 218A.1421(2)(a). If an adult defendant charged with such an offense also possessed a firearm in furtherance of the offense, the defendant would "[b]e penalized as a Class D felon." KRS 218A.992(1)(b). Again, that enhancement only occurs if the defendant "is convicted." Id. Under Appellant's approach to charging under the firearm enhancement statute, the adult would only be charged with a misdemeanor, with the enhancement only coming into play after conviction.
But where would such a defendant be tried? District court or circuit court? The offense as charged controls which
Yet, upon conviction, the hypothetical offense becomes a Class D felony. See KRS 218A.992. And the district courts of this Commonwealth do not have jurisdiction to make final dispositions of felonies. See KRS 24A.110(1); Commonwealth v. Stephenson, 82 S.W.3d 876, 887-88 (Ky.2002) ("[District courts cannot make final dispositions as to felony offenses."); Waugh v. Commonwealth, 605 S.W.2d 43, 45 (Ky.App.1980) ("KRS 24A.110 gives no jurisdiction for final disposition of felony cases to the district courts. Such is reserved to the circuit courts."). Instead, "[a]s far as ... felony offenses [a]re concerned, the district court c[an] act only as an examining court." Keller v. Commonwealth, 594 S.W.2d 589, 592 (Ky.1980); see also KRS 24A.110(3) (giving the district court, "concurrent with Circuit court, jurisdiction to examine any charge of a public offense denominated as a felony"). In other words, district courts can only address preliminary matters, such as making a probable cause finding and then "hold[ing] the defendant to answer in the circuit court," RCr 3.14(1), when the charged offense is a felony. Thus, if a district court tries such a firearm enhanced trafficking charge, it has exceeded its jurisdiction.
Appellant's interpretation of the firearm enhancement statute, which only alters the classification of an offense upon conviction, thus has a perverse, absurd effect. In essence, it means that such a charge cannot properly be resolved in any court, unless one considers the entire district court trial of the claimed misdemeanor—complete with a jury, the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden of proof, and a finding as to guilt—to be an "examining" proceeding after which the charge would be bound over to the grand jury. But such an examining-trial approach would be barred by double jeopardy, since it would result in a decision as to the defendant's guilt, which would bar a second trial at the circuit court. See United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 95 S.Ct. 1013, 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1975) (noting the double jeopardy clause incorporates the idea of autrefois convict, or previous conviction, to bar retrial). Thus, this Court cannot see the sense in such a reading of the statute.
Nor can this Court apply a different reading to different circumstances in which the classification of the charged offense matters. Thus, we are forced to conclude that a firearm enhanced drug offense is actually charged at the higher level regardless of the procedural circumstances. This reading comports with the common understanding among the bench and bar that such a trafficking offense is charged as an "enhanced" offense and is
Because the district court's order was valid on its face, and this Court sees no other reason to doubt that the circuit court properly acquired jurisdiction in this case, the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
All sitting. All concur.
The provision has since been amended to distinguish between two different versions of first offense first-degree trafficking, one of which is a Class D felony and one of which is a Class C felony. See 2011 Ky. Acts ch. 2, § 9 (effective June 8, 2011).
