William Dale Bunge v. Susan Marie Sharpe ( 2023 )

RENDERED: JULY 28, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2022-CA-1110-ME
WILLIAM DALE BUNGE APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE LUCINDA CRONIN MASTERTON, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 22-D-00486-001
SUSAN MARIE SHARPE; ALUNA APPELLEES
BUNGE; ANDREW SHARPE;
JORDAN SHARPE; OMZA BUNGE;
AND TORUS BUNGE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: ACREE, KAREM, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.
ACREE, JUDGE: Appellant William Bunge, pro se, appeals the Fayette Family
Court’s August 16, 2022 domestic violence order (DVO). We affirm.
William and Appellee Susan Sharpe were in a long-term relationship.
They have three biological children together. Susan also has a biological son and
daughter from a prior relationship. On April 26, 2022, Susan’s son told her he
witnessed William performing oral sex on her daughter. The daughter confirmed
this to her mother and revealed William had been pressuring her to have sex with
him. Susan left with all the children and contacted the police. She filed her
Petition for Order of Protection the next day.
At the August 16, 2022 hearing on the petition, Detective Collins
testified as to the allegations against William. Susan also testified. Though
William’s counsel briefly cross-examined Susan and Detective Collins, he did not
challenge the inclusion of all the children in the petition, called no witnesses,
presented no argument, stated no objections, and otherwise did not attempt to
preserve any issues for appeal.
The family court granted the DVO. As relevant to the present appeal,
the DVO restrains William, for three years, from having any unauthorized contact
with Susan and all five children, including by means of social media or through a
third party, and requires William to remain five hundred feet away from them
while the DVO is in place.
William now appeals, arguing the family court erred by including his
own three biological children in the DVO, and seeks facilitated communication
-2-
and visitation with the children. He argues the family court did not grant the DVO
upon a preponderance of the evidence as required by KRS1 403.740.
William filed his brief pro se. However, this fact does not preclude
this Court from striking a deficient appellate brief. See Koester v. Koester, 569
S.W.3d 412 (Ky. App. 2019). Our appellate rules exist for good reason: they are
“lights and buoys to mark the channels of safe passage and assure an expeditious
voyage to the right destination.” Louisville & Jefferson Cnty. Metro. Sewer Dist. v.
Bischoff, 248 S.W.3d 533, 536 (Ky. 2007) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 551
S.W.2d 557, 559 (Ky. 1977)).
The deficiencies in William’s four-page brief are not minor. An
appellate brief must include a statement of points and authorities listing each
authority cited and on which page in the brief the authority is cited. CR2
76.12(4)(c)(iii) (now RAP3 32(A)(2)). It must also include a statement of the case,
which summarizes its factual and procedural history with ample citation to the
specific pages of the record supporting the summary. CR 76.12(4)(c)(iv) (now
RAP 32(A)(3)). An appellate argument must include ample citation to both
pertinent legal authority and, to demonstrate the issues argued have been
1
Kentucky Revised Statutes.
2
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
3
Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure.
-3-
preserved, to the appellate record. CR 76.12(4)(c)(v) (now RAP 32(A)(4)).
William’s brief is lacking in each of these respects and many others.
William does not request palpable error review. “Absent extreme
circumstances amounting to a substantial miscarriage of justice, an appellate court
will not engage in palpable error review pursuant to RCr[4] 10.26 unless such a
request is made and briefed by the appellant.” Shepherd v. Commonwealth, 251
S.W.3d 309, 316 (Ky. 2008). “The language of CR 61.02 is identical to its
criminal law counterpart, RCr 10.26, and we interpret that language identically.”
Nami Resources Company, L.L.C. v. Asher Land and Mineral, Ltd., 554 S.W.3d
323, 338 (Ky. 2018).
“Compliance with [the appellate rules] is mandatory.” Smothers v.
Baptist Hospital East, 468 S.W.3d 878, 881 (Ky. App. 2015) (citing Hallis v.
Hallis, 328 S.W.3d 694, 696 (Ky. App. 2010)). Still, “dismissal for failure to
comply with the provisions of [the appellate rules] is discretionary rather than
mandatory.” Simmons v. Commonwealth, 232 S.W.3d 531, 533 (Ky. App. 2007)
(citations omitted).
Because this case involves a question of a parent’s constitutional right
to raise his child, we will not strike the brief and dismiss the appeal although the
deficiencies of William’s brief make review more than difficult. However, we
4
Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure.
-4-
have examined William’s brief as best we can, given its limitations, and conclude
there is no basis upon which to render any opinion other than one affirming the
circuit court.
The family court considered the nature and severity of William’s
alleged actions and heard testimony that William believed he needed to commit
suicide or disappear. William attempted to persuade Susan to forego police
involvement by offering to have himself castrated. The Cabinet for Health and
Family Service’s prevention plan required that William have no contact with any
of Susan’s children, including William’s own children. We detect no error in the
family court’s inclusion of all the children in the DVO.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the Fayette Family Court’s August
16, 2022 DVO.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
William D. Bunge, pro se Nicole S. Bearse
New Albany, Indiana Frankfort, Kentucky
-5-