SHERMAN LOUIS GENE NOBLE V. STEPHEN P. RYAN, JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED SEPTEMBER 13, 2002; 10:00 a.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
2000-CA-001490-OA
SHERMAN LOUIS GENE NOBLE,
V.
PETITIONER
ON REMAND FROM SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY
NO. 2000-SC-000907-OA
ORIGINAL ACTION
REGARDING FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
ACTION NO. 96-CR-002257
STEPHEN P. RYAN, JEFFERSON
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
RESPONDENT
* * * * * * * * *
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE:
EMBERTON, CHIEF JUDGE; GUDGEL, AND KNOPF, JUDGES.
GUDGEL, JUDGE:
On June 26, 2000, the petitioner, Sherman Louis
Gene Noble, filed a pro se petition for writ of prohibition with
this Court seeking to prohibit the respondent, Hon. Stephen P.
Ryan, Jefferson Circuit Court Judge, Sixth Division, from
subjecting him to prosecution on several felony counts, including
three counts of murder.
This Court denied Noble’s petition on
September 1, 2000 without presenting any legal reasons for its
denial.
Noble appealed to the Supreme Court of Kentucky.
On May
16, 2002, the Supreme Court reversed and remand the petition to
this Court with instructions to provide an opinion and order
setting forth legal reasons for this Court’s denial of Noble’s
petition for writ of prohibition.
On August 6, 1987, Noble was indicted and charged with
murder in Jefferson Circuit Court Indictment 87-CR-001185.
indictment was dismissed on February 8, 1989.
This
On December 2,
1992, Noble was again indicted and in Jefferson Circuit Court
Indictment 92-CR-003135 was charged with four counts of murder,
three counts of robbery in the first degree and three counts of
burglary in the first degree.
July 8, 1994.
This indictment was dismissed on
On October 2, 1996, Noble was indicted yet again.
In Jefferson Circuit Court Indictment 96-CR-002257, Noble was
again charged with four counts of murder, three counts of robbery
in the first degree and three counts of burglary in the first
degree.
The record reflects that Noble’s competency to stand
trial was at issue.
In his petition, Noble argues that his right to a
speedy trial has been violated because he was originally charged
fourteen years ago.
In his petition, Noble does not
differentiate between Jefferson Circuit Court Indictment 87-CR001185, Jefferson Circuit Court Indictment 92-CR-003135 and
Jefferson Circuit Court Indictment 96-CR-002257, and he refers to
them as one case.
Noble argues that on August 26, 1991, the
Jefferson Circuit Court granted him a speedy trial and he
attached an order from the Jefferson Circuit Court styled
Indictment 87-CR-001185.
This order, which apparently was
entered after the indictment was dismissed, set the case for pretrial conference on October 4, 1991 and set the case for trial on
February 25, 1992.
However, the record reflects that Indictment
87-CR-001185 was dismissed.
Noble also claims that he has made
-2-
several motions to dismiss based on the alleged violation of his
right to receive a speedy trial.
Noble argues that in 1991 he was involuntarily
committed to the Kentucky Correctional Psychiatric Center for
sixty days.
He claims that the Commonwealth moved to have him
evaluated, presumably for competency to stand trial, on May 17,
1993 and that he was involuntarily committed to Central State
hospital for a period three hundred and sixty days.
Apparently,
Noble spent the next few years at Central State since he argues
that the circuit court failed to enter re-commitment orders for
the years 1995 and 1996 as required by KRS 202A.051.
Noble
argues that he was finally found competent to stand trial on
August 4, 1997 but that no trial date was ever set.
Noble cites Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct.
2182 (1972) and argues that due to the fourteen year delay he has
lost crucial defense witnesses, such as Ms. Wanda Eley, who has
died.
He argues that due to the delay the Commonwealth has lost
exculpatory physical evidence and that it now has an unfair
advantage over him.
Noble cites Spivey v. Jackson, Ky., 602
S.W.2d 158 (1990) and argues his case should be dismissed.
Noble
cites Daggett v. U.S., 508 U.S. 647, 112 S.Ct. 2686 (1992) and
argues that the Supreme Court of the United States has held that
an eight and half year delay violated the right to speedy trial;
therefore, a fourteen year delay is presumptively prejudicial.
Finally, Noble cites Mann v. Commonwealth, Ky., 561 S.W.2d 335
(1978) and argues that the state speedy trial provision has been
violated.
On July 7, 2000, the Commonwealth responded to Noble’s
-3-
petition for writ of prohibition.
The Commonwealth argues that
Noble failed to show that the Jefferson Circuit Court acted or is
about to act outside its jurisdiction and that Noble failed to
show he is entitled to a writ of prohibition because he has an
adequate remedy by appeal.
The Commonwealth points out that
writs are extraordinary remedies which will only be issued “under
exceptional circumstances...to prevent a miscarriage of justice.”
Commonwealth v. Williams, Ky., 995 S.W.2d 400, 401 (1999).
The
Commonwealth cites Haight v. Williamson, Ky., 833 S.W.2d 821
(1992); Vinson v. Warren, Ky., 425 S.W.2d 562 (1968) and Anderson
v. Johnson, Ky., 314 S.W.2d 202 (1958) and argues that a denial
of the right to speedy trial is answerable on appeal; therefore,
Noble is not entitled to the extraordinary relief of prohibition.
Pursuant to Tipton v. Commonwealth, Ky. App., 770
S.W.2d 239 (1989), to obtain a writ of prohibition, a petitioner
must show either:
1) that the lower court is proceeding or is
about to proceed outside its jurisdiction and
the petitioner has no adequate remedy by
appeal, or
2) that the lower court is about to act
incorrectly but within its jurisdiction and
the petitioner has no adequate remedy by
appeal or, absent the writ, the petitioner
will suffer great injustice and irreparable
harm.
In his petition, Noble failed to show that the Jefferson Circuit
Court proceeded or is about to proceed outside its jurisdiction
or that it is acting within its jurisdiction but incorrectly.
Noble also failed to show that he will suffer great injustice and
irreparable harm absent the writ.
Most importantly, Noble failed
to show that he has no adequate remedy by appeal.
-4-
In Haight v.
Commonwealth, Ky., 833 S.W.2d 821, 823 (1992), the Supreme Court
of Kentucky stated that, “any violations of constitutional rights
in a criminal conviction provide no basis for issuance of a
writ.” (citation omitted)
In fact, in Anderson v. Johnson, Ky.,
314 S.W.2d 202 (1958), petitioner was convicted of murder and
sentenced to life.
Nine years later, he received parole and was
promptly indicted for grand larceny because he had stolen a cow
during or near the time of the murder.
Petitioner filed a
petition for writ of prohibition and argued his right to a speedy
trial had been violated due to the Commonwealth waiting nine
years to indict him.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals, now the
Supreme Court of Kentucky, held:
We find no merit in the contention that the
petitioner would have no adequate remedy
should he be convicted because § 172,
Criminal Code of Practice, limits his pleas
to guilty, not guilty and former jeopardy,
and does not provide for any plea by which
the defendant may raise the question stated.
. . . The defendant may enter his claim of a
violation of his constitutional rights by an
appropriate motion to abate or dismiss the
indictment. If such a motion be entered and
decided adversely to the defendant and he
should be convicted, he will have the right
to have the decision reviewed on an appeal.
Therefore, having considered Noble’s pro se petition
for writ of prohibition and being otherwise advised, this Court
ORDERS that the petition be, and it is hereby, DENIED for the
reasons stated above.
ENTERED: September 13, 2002
/s/
-5-
Paul D. Gudgel
JUDGE, COURT OF APPEALS
-6-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
