Danny Ray Sizemore v. Commonwealth of Kentucky ( 2022 )

RENDERED: OCTOBER 7, 2022; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2019-CA-1798-MR
DANNY R. SIZEMORE APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM LAUREL CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE MICHAEL O. CAPERTON, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 12-CR-00126
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE; MAZE AND K. THOMPSON, JUDGES.
THOMPSON, K., JUDGE: Danny R. Sizemore appeals from the Laurel Circuit
Court’s October 21, 2019 order denying his Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure
(RCr) 11.42 motion to vacate the October 23, 2013 judgment based upon
ineffective assistance of counsel after an evidentiary hearing. Upon review, we
affirm.
On May 18, 2012, a Laurel Circuit grand jury indicted Sizemore for
offenses relating to his alleged sexual contact with C.T., a person less than fourteen
years of age, between January 2010 and January 2012. The charged offenses
included: (1) rape in the first degree; (2) sexual abuse in the first degree; (3) rape
in the second degree; and (4) sodomy in the second degree. Sizemore’s charges
were ultimately scheduled for a jury trial on August 7, 2013.
However, on August 1, 2013, during his final pretrial hearing,
Sizemore moved to enter a guilty plea. His plea agreement specified that Sizemore
would plead guilty to one count of rape in the second degree, for which he would
serve seven years’ imprisonment; one count of sodomy in the second degree, for
which he would serve a consecutive sentence of five years’ imprisonment; and in
exchange, the Commonwealth would dismiss his remaining charges. Sizemore’s
plea agreement with the Commonwealth stipulated the facts of the case as follows:
On or about January 2012, in Laurel County, Kentucky,
[Sizemore], acting alone or in concert with others,
committed the offenses of Rape in the Second Degree
and Sodomy in the Second Degree.
At the pretrial hearing, the circuit court initially assessed the
voluntariness of Sizemore’s guilty plea through a colloquy consistent with Boykin
v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). During his
colloquy, Sizemore provided affirmative responses when asked, in substance, the
following questions:
-2-
Has your attorney explained to you the nature of the
charges against you, the penalties they carry, and any
possible defenses to the charges?
Have you had all the time you need to talk privately with
your attorney?
Are you satisfied with the service he provided?
Do you understand that you have the rights to a jury trial,
representation, and to confront witnesses of the
Commonwealth, and that you give up these rights by
entering a guilty plea?
Sizemore also provided negative responses when asked, in substance,
the following questions:
Have you ever suffered from any mental illness or defect
in the past that affected your ability to think and to
reason?
Do you suffer from any such mental illness or defect at
this time?
Is there anything that you wanted your attorney to do in
your defense that your attorney has not done?
Do you now have any question of the court or your
attorney concerning your motion to enter a guilty plea?
Based upon Sizemore’s answers, what it observed of his demeanor,
and the consistent assurances of Sizemore’s counsel, the circuit court determined
Sizemore’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and the circuit
court accepted it. However, final sentencing was postponed until October 18,
-3-
2013, pending a presentence investigation (PSI) which, considering the nature of
his crimes, entailed a sexual offender evaluation.
On October 18, 2013, Sizemore appeared for final sentencing. By that
time, he had been evaluated and a PSI report had been furnished to the circuit court
pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 532.050. Prior to sentencing,
however, Sizemore’s counsel and the prosecutor conferred with the trial judge at
the bench regarding an issue that had arisen over the course of Sizemore’s PSI
evaluation. Apparently, the PSI report (which is not of record) reflected that
Sizemore had indicated to the evaluating probation officer that he was not guilty of
the charges to which he had pled guilty. Sizemore’s counsel represented that he
had not received the PSI report until 5 p.m. on October 17, 2013, and “I went to the
jail this morning to talk to [Sizemore], show him what he did, and he said, ‘well, I
didn’t know I did that.’” Sizemore’s counsel explained that his client’s denial of
guilt to the evaluating probation officer was born of confusion or panic; and,
fearing that Sizemore’s denial would negatively impact the risk assessment aspect
of the PSI, he asked the circuit court to enter an order requiring the Department of
Corrections to reevaluate Sizemore to permit Sizemore to admit guilt. Thereafter,
the circuit court, prosecution, and Sizemore’s counsel debated whether such an
order could be binding upon the Department of Corrections, and whether requiring
a second PSI would have any practical impact upon Sizemore’s prospects of
-4-
parole. Nevertheless, the circuit court agreed to enter an order directing the
Department of Corrections, Sex Offender Risk Assessment Unit, to reevaluate
Sizemore “as soon as possible.” It entered a written order to that effect on October
30, 2013.
Proceeding with final sentencing, the circuit court asked Sizemore and
his counsel if there was any reason why Sizemore’s sentence should not be
pronounced, and if Sizemore wished to make any additional statement in his
defense or in mitigation. Sizemore, for his part, said nothing. Sizemore’s counsel
responded that the PSI report should be amended to reflect that Sizemore’s
education level had progressed to “two years of college” (as opposed to what the
report had apparently and erroneously represented was a “10th grade education”);
and he requested probation for his client, which was denied. The circuit court,
finding no reason why Sizemore’s sentence should not be pronounced, then
sentenced Sizemore consistently with his plea agreement to a total of twelve years’
imprisonment.
On October 11, 2016, Sizemore moved to set aside the circuit court’s
judgment and sentence of imprisonment pursuant to RCr 11.42, asserting the
evidence would have demonstrated he was not guilty, and that his guilty plea had
been the product of his counsel’s deficient representation.
-5-
As somewhat illustrated below, Sizemore’s RCr 11.42 arguments
have varied over time depending upon the state of the proceedings, and many of
his arguments have been effectively waived, abandoned, or improperly raised for
the first time in this appeal. For purposes of fleshing out his appellate arguments,
it is necessary to discuss the full array of his arguments in depth, along with how
they have progressed. Sizemore first elaborated upon his counsel’s alleged acts of
deficient representation in an extensive memorandum accompanying his RCr 11.42
motion. There, he argued in relevant part:
Trial counsel failed to interview witnesses of the
Commonwealth’s, especially the investigating officer,
Stacy T. Anderkin. If he had, trial counsel would have
learned that Anderkin never recorded the so called
interview with the movant. It was clearly hearsay on the
investigator’s part, for the movant never confessed, never
signed a confession, or never signed a waiver of any
type, (Miranda[1] Rights or Waiver of Attorney)[.]
Anderkin stated that the movant signed a waiver in her
statement and said it was attached but when movant
received his trial counsel’s file and the certified court
records, there was no waiver form of any type. Movant
has maintained that he has never signed any waiver of
any type. This should have been aggressively attacked
by trial counsel for if an investigator fails to record an
interview, or have a signed statement or confession, it
would be very hard to be clear of all the facts and issues
that were discussed and said during the interview.
Failure to file a Motion to Suppress and attack this
improper interview was well below what is required of a
competent attorney.
1
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct 436, 86 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
-6-
...
Trial counsel failed to follow up on the fact that the
alleged victim has accused Two (2) other men of the
same crime that the movant was accused of.
...
[T]rial counsel relied on the family of the movant to
gather information and chose to sit by and wait on what
the Prosecutor was going to do. Any time that the
movant would request for something to be done, counsel
would tell the movant we just need to wait and see what
the Commonwealth will do.
...
Movant requested and received the trial counsel’s file to
his case, and there was no notes that an actual
investigation was ever done. There was no record of an
investigator being hired to assist the defense with the
investigation of the movant’s case. No interviews of the
Commonwealth’s witnesses or the alleged victim, nor
any depositions taken. No Subpoenas were ever done for
Medical Records, or for any other testing, or
examinations done.
...
The Movant asserts that trial counsel never advised the
movant of any potential affirmative defense. That trial
counsel never discussed any trial strategy with the
movant.
...
Movant asserts that because of the continued oppression
of his trial counsel, and the loss of his sister and
daughter, and knowing that the trial counsel had done
nothing and was not going to do anything to defend him;
-7-
movant asserts that he had no choice that to take the plea
deal to avoid a lengthy prison sentence because trial
counsel was doing nothing but waiting to see what the
Commonwealth Attorney was going to do.
...
Trial counsel rendered Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
when he told a witness, Missy Jones, for the movant, that
she needed to keep her mouth shut or she would go to jail
as well. Missy Jones came to the trial counsel’s office on
her own to discuss what she knew. Jones would have
given testimony that the allegations against the movant
was not true and if given the chance to testify Jones
would have further testified that the alleged victim was
sexually active and these allegations were made up and
had no merit.
...
Due to the failure of trial counsel to obtain all of the
movant’s medical records; within these medical records
was medical proof that the movant has Hepatitis C and
has had it for years. And if trial counsel would have
requested a blood test from the alleged victim; this would
have shown that the alleged victim did not have Hepatitis
C and would have been used to impeach the alleged
victim because, Hepatitis C is a highly transmitted
disease that can be contracted from injection of drugs,
blood transfer, and or sexual intercourse. The medical
records would have further shown that Hepatitis C has no
symptoms and is detectable only by a blood test.
...
Movant asserts that he was denied Effective Assistance
of Counsel when his trial attorney never discussed the
effects of him signing a plea deal. He never informed the
movant of his rights he would waive when he signed for
a plea deal; such as the right to trial by jury, the right to
-8-
confront his accusers, the right to have witnesses for his
defense, the right to appeal, or the right to remain silent.
Counsel was fully aware that the movant’s daughter had
passed away suddenly in 2012 and his sister had passed
away as well in 2013. This was an emotional period of
the movant’s life and he was not in his clear mind and
was not able to clearly assist in his defense and when his
Trial counsel failed to defend him against these
allegations, prepare or advance a defense, and when his
trial counsel consistently pressured the movant into
taking a plea deal, he gave up and accepted it reluctantly,
but he maintained his innocence then and still does as of
today.
...
[I]f trial counsel would have investigated the case at
hand, he would have discovered that the alleged victim
said that the movant had a very hairy chest; if the trial
counsel had done any investigation into the facts of this
case, he would have learned that the movant has very
little hair in the above mentioned area and is unable to
grow hair in the above mentioned area.
...
[T]he cumulative effect of trial counsel’s errors
substantially prejudiced the movant.
The circuit court ultimately granted Sizemore’s request for an
evidentiary hearing on his motion, placing no limit upon the scope of the hearing.
It granted Sizemore’s request for appointed counsel. It also granted appointed
counsel’s requests to continue the hearing on Sizemore’s motion to August 8,
2019, to provide a full opportunity to review and investigate the substance of the
motion.
-9-
At the onset of the August 8, 2019 hearing, the Commonwealth
informed the circuit court it anticipated Sizemore would be providing testimony,
and that Sizemore’s former counsel would also provide testimony if necessary.
However, Sizemore’s counsel explained to the circuit court that “[w]e just would
like to take a little bit of testimony from Mr. Sizemore. I think that would
conclude it for today, any proof we’d be offering.”
Thereafter, in line with his counsel’s statement, the only evidence
Sizemore adduced at the evidentiary hearing was his own self-serving testimony.
Sizemore failed to offer any testimony or argument regarding: (1) his counsel’s
failure to secure a blood test from his alleged victim for purposes of determining
whether she had contracted Hepatitis C; (2) his counsel’s directive to Missy Jones
to “keep her mouth shut”; or (3) the impeachment evidence that in his view his
former counsel should have discovered about C.T. – other than to say that his
former counsel told him that “mak[ing] the child look promiscuous” “would make
the child look bad and make me look bad.” He testified “the first thing” his
counsel “should have done was suppress evidence on [Detective (Det.)] Anderkin,”
but offered no further elaboration. Speaking in generalities, he also testified that
his attorney had failed to adequately investigate, research, and prosecute his case.
-10-
Apart from that, much of Sizemore’s testimony was directed toward
issues he had never discussed in his RCr 11.42 motion. His counsel summarized
and highlighted those issues in a closing argument following the hearing:
Your honor, this 11.42 motion was brought by Mr.
Sizemore because, um, primarily because he felt like he
was not, uh, he was forced into taking this 11.42, I’m
sorry, this plea deal. And we say that because, primarily
because of the discussion on the percentages on the
parole eligibility. Mr. Sizemore did say, although there
was a little confusion, although he did that the parole
eligibility was a factor in him taking it. Had he known he
had to serve 85% of twelve years, he wouldn’t’ve taken
it, and would’ve taken his chances in defending himself.
However, um, because of the different factors that he was
facing while in prison awaiting trial, um, he testified
specifically to not getting the right medication, which to
me is the biggest one. But also that he had to be
subjected to being, um, he had to be subjected to
knowing that his family was dying and not being able to
be there, and that he would have to be labeled as a sex
offender, um, if convicted or found guilty. Now, I say
that because, as Mr. Sizemore testified, you know, being
labeled as a sex offender, uh, especially for a life
sentence, but even for twelve years alone, um, even
worse in county jail where there are less, less restrictions
than, um, you know in a prison, uh, between the inmates
and themselves, you know, he is subjected to a lot of
anguish. Mr. Sizemore said that, you know, people refer
to him as “cho-mo,” that others were making him, uh,
potentially making him doing things that he had been told
by others while in prison that it gets even worse, um, as a
sex offender. And so, the big thing for Mr. Sizemore was
that during his time, sixteen months with, which is a
pretty extensive period of time to send, serve in jail
waiting for trial, during that time he was subjected to all
these things. And aside from being on depression
medication that he was not receiving, um, you know, I
-11-
would’ve, I would say that I would’ve taken a plea deal
as well to get that over with. And that’s what he’s
standing here today saying, is that he really just wanted
to get this over with, and that he was told, and was under
the impression that he would only have to serve about 32
months, and that while he knew it wasn’t guaranteed, that
the fact that he was only about to be 32 months was,
alright, okay, you know, can get through that quickly and
can be done. It’s not necessarily about, um, not serving a
life sentence without, with the possibility of parole, but
it’s about the fact that he felt, in maintaining his
innocence throughout with his communications with his
attorney, but felt like the process was taking too long and
the best way to go about that was to plead guilty.
(Emphasis added.)
In other words, Sizemore had argued in his motion that his decision to
plead guilty had been affected by the duration of his pretrial incarceration and the
deaths of his sister and daughter; but at the hearing, he also argued, for the first
time, that his decision had also been induced by: (1) lack of medication for
depression during his incarceration; (2) the threat of abuse from other prisoners
due to the nature of his offenses; and (3) incorrect advice from his counsel
regarding his parole eligibility.
Following the hearing, the circuit court entered a dispositive order
resolving Sizemore’s motion. There, it first addressed whether Sizemore had
demonstrated that, but for the incorrect advice of his former counsel regarding his
parole eligibility, he would not have pled guilty. The circuit court determined
Sizemore had failed to do so, specifically noting that Sizemore had conceded
-12-
during the hearing: “I wasn’t depending on making parole in the first place.
That’s just something [my former counsel] said to me and he told my family.”
Second, it addressed whether Sizemore had demonstrated his former
counsel had provided him ineffective assistance by not moving to suppress
whatever statements he had made during his interview with Det. Anderkin. The
circuit court determined Sizemore had failed to do so, pointing out that Sizemore
never claimed his former counsel had refused or never planned to file a motion to
suppress. Sizemore had merely claimed his former counsel had not, prior to his
guilty plea, filed a motion to suppress or attack any statements of Det. Anderkin,
which was not enough.
Third, it addressed whether Sizemore had presented any other specific
instance of action or inaction from his former counsel that was outside the
acceptable range of a competent attorney. It found Sizemore had not done so.
Lastly, it addressed whether Sizemore had adduced sufficient
evidence demonstrating his guilty plea was rendered involuntary due to pressure
from his counsel, mental stress arising from the deaths of his sister and daughter,
or his fear of serving a life sentence (as opposed to merely twelve years’
imprisonment) labeled as a child molester. In this vein, the circuit court considered
Sizemore’s hearing testimony favoring that proposition, and it deemed his hearing
testimony insufficient when weighed against what Sizemore had represented in
-13-
2013 during his Boykin colloquy. Having addressed these four points, and having
found them lacking in merit, the circuit court denied Sizemore’s motion.
On appeal, Sizemore spends much of his brief stating the law relative
to RCr 11.42 motions. However, he does not address the circuit court’s
determinations that he: (1) failed to demonstrate that, but for the incorrect advice
of his former counsel regarding his parole eligibility, he would not have pled
guilty; and (2) failed to demonstrate his former counsel provided him ineffective
assistance by not moving to suppress whatever statements he had made during his
interview with Det. Anderkin. Accordingly, Sizemore has abandoned those issues
and they will not be reviewed. “Normally, assignments of error not argued in an
appellant’s brief are waived.” Commonwealth v. Bivins, 740 S.W.2d 954, 956 (Ky.
1987). “An appellant’s failure to discuss particular errors in his brief is the same
as if no brief at all had been filed on those issues.” Milby v. Mears, 580 S.W.2d
724, 727 (Ky.App. 1979).
Sizemore argues that while he was incarcerated prior to his guilty
plea, he was “[n]ot provided medical attention for pain or depression medication he
been on for years,” and his former counsel was ineffective by failing to “discover[]
the inconsistences [sic] within the same interview of [C.T.]” and failing to “motion
Court for a blood test[.]” Sizemore adduced no argument or evidence during his
hearing relative to his former counsel’s failure to try to discover impeachment
-14-
evidence about C.T., instead again referencing strategic reasons his counsel
provided as to why it would not be appropriate to pursue a defense that C.T. had
other attackers. We note that the rape shield law may have prevented much of the
evidence Sizemore was hoping his counsel to be able to put on from being
introduced at any trial, the fact that C.T. may have had multiple attackers would
not exclude him from being one of them, and that even assuming a blood test
would show that Sizemore has Hepatitis C and C.T. does not, this would not
exclude him as a perpetrator. The failure to call his trial counsel to testify
seriously undermined these claims and Sizemore was not able to show any
prejudice from these claimed failures to investigate.
Additionally, absent the introduction of evidence to support
allegations made in an RCr 11.42 hearing, these issues are properly deemed to
have been waived. King v. Commonwealth, 408 S.W.2d 204, 205 (Ky. 1966).
Moreover, because the circuit court made no findings relative to any of these
issues, and because Sizemore filed no post-judgment motion requesting findings on
these issues, they cannot serve as bases for reversing or remanding. See RCr
11.42(6).
Sizemore also asserts:
In Appellant [sic] presentencing report Appellant
continue [sic] to maintain his innocence even though he
was entering into a plea agreement with the Court. The
Court ordered Appellant to be re-evaluated by the
-15-
Department of Corrections to allow Mr. Sizemore to state
he had done the crime he now pleads guilty to, as
instructed by his counsel. To date, the order has never
been followed and appellant has continued to maintain
his innocence.
To be clear, nothing of record indicates Sizemore was ever,
consistently with the circuit court’s October 30, 2013 order, reevaluated by the
Department of Corrections for purposes of his PSI. To the extent Sizemore
addresses this subject in his brief, he seems not to take issue with that fact at all,
and rather appears to view it as evidence that he has consistently maintained his
innocence throughout these proceedings. Assuming this detail is relevant,
however, Sizemore ignores that he nevertheless pled guilty. Sizemore also ignores
that, when given an opportunity during final sentencing (e.g., after his PSI
evaluation) to provide any reason why his sentence should not be pronounced, or if
he wished to make any additional statement in his defense or in mitigation, he said
nothing.
Additionally, Sizemore asserts that “Mr. Sizemore [sic] education
assessments on February 17, 2014, Language Skills are that of Beginning Basic
Education[,]” and “[a]t best, we can only surmise or use guesswork if Mr.
Sizemore understood his plea that he was force [sic] to take by Counsel.” To start,
this argument is undercut by what Sizemore’s former counsel represented during
final sentencing, i.e., that Sizemore’s education progressed to the point of two
-16-
years of college. That aside, this argument was never presented below, and this
Court “is without authority to review issues not raised in or decided by the trial
court.” Regional Jail Auth. v. Tackett, 770 S.W.2d 225, 228 (Ky. 1989) (citations
omitted).
The remainder of Sizemore’s appellate arguments consist of general
contentions, without citation to the record, that his guilty plea was induced by his
former counsel’s pressure to accept the Commonwealth’s agreement; his former
counsel’s failure to adequately investigate, research, and prosecute his case; and
his specific contention that his guilty plea was likewise induced by the mental
anguish he suffered due to the deaths of his sister and daughter, and his prolonged
pretrial incarceration.
In cases involving a guilty plea, the United States Supreme Court has
stated that the traditional test is “whether the plea represents a voluntary and
intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.”
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56, 106 S.Ct. 366, 369, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985)
(quoting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d
162 (1970)). Consequently, a defendant must show that “there is a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and
would have insisted on going to trial.” Id. at 59, 106 S.Ct. at 370. See also Taylor
v. Commonwealth, 724 S.W.2d 223 (Ky.App. 1986). When an evidentiary hearing
-17-
is held in an RCr 11.42 proceeding, RCr 11.42(6) requires the circuit court to make
findings on the material issues of fact, which we review under a clearly erroneous
standard. Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 52.01; Haight v.
Commonwealth, 41 S.W.3d 436, 442 (Ky. 2001), overruled on other grounds by
Leonard v. Commonwealth, 279 S.W.3d 151 (Ky. 2009).
Here, the only evidence Sizemore adduced on these subjects during
the evidentiary hearing derived from his own general, self-serving testimony. This
testimony directly conflicted with, and was undermined by, the testimony he
provided during his August 1, 2013 Boykin colloquy. A defendant’s statements
and testimony during a plea colloquy play a role in determining, based upon the
record, whether his plea was knowing and voluntary. See Commonwealth v. Elza,
284 S.W.3d 118, 122 (Ky. 2009) (utilizing a defendant’s “statements and
demeanor” at the plea colloquy as evidence against allegations of coercion and
deficient performance). Such “[s]olemn declarations in open court carry a strong
presumption of verity.” Edmonds v. Commonwealth, 189 S.W.3d 558, 569 (Ky.
2006) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 1629, 52
L.Ed.2d 136 (Ky. 1977)). Accordingly, the circuit court did not clearly err in
assigning more weight to Sizemore’s Boykin colloquy statements, which
contradicted his self-serving and general hearing testimony that his former
-18-
counsel’s representation was deficient, and that mental anguish induced him to
enter his guilty plea.
Accordingly, we affirm the Laurel Circuit Court’s denial of
Sizemore’s RCr 11.42 motion.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Danny R. Sizemore, pro se Daniel Cameron
La Grange, Kentucky Attorney General of Kentucky
Todd D. Ferguson
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
-19-