SHAWN WINDSOR V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED : APRIL 24, 2008
TO BE PUBLISHED
;VuVrrm
0Q1
6
2007-SC-000039-MR
SHAWN WINDSOR
V.
APPELLANT
ON APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE MARTIN F. MCDONALD, JUDGE
NO. 04-CR-000001
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE SCHRODER
AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART, AND REMANDING
The issue in this case is whether an unconditional guilty plea automatically
waives a direct appeal authorized by Section 115 of the Kentucky Constitution .
Although the AOC guilty plea form no . 491 used in this case does contain an express
waiver of a direct appeal, the waiver is not absolute . Therefore, the case must be
remanded for reinstatement of the right to appeal .
Against the advice of counsel, Shawn Windsor entered an unconditional plea of
guilty to two counts of murder (and two other charges). At the time he entered a guilty
plea, he requested the judge impose the death penalty. At the sentencing hearing, the
judge entered a sentence of death on each murder charge (as well as sentences on the
other two offenses) . In the court's "Judgment of Conviction and Sentence", entered
November 17, 2006, the Appellant was found guilty of two counts of Capital Murder
(and the two other charges), and sentenced to death on each murder count. The
judgment also contained a notice to the Appellant "that he has the right to appeal and
that, if he is unable to pay the coos of appeal or employ counsel for appeal, the Court
will appoint counsel and will grant the (Appellant] the right to file his appeal in forma
pauperis." Subsequently, appointed counsel filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis
on appeal . The Commonwealth objected on grounds that Appellant had waived his
right of direct appeal pursuant to his guilty plea. By "Order Amending Judgment",
entered December 13, 2000 the circuit court amended the judgment "to reflect that the
[Appellant] has no right to appeal but the Judgment will receive the mandatory review by
the Kentucky Supreme Court as provided by statute ."
Appellant contends that the amended judgment, to the extent that it extinguishes
his constitutional right to appeal, constitutes error. We agree. While an unconditional
guilty plea waives the right to appeal many constitutional protections as well a8 the right
t] appeal a finding of guilt on the sufficiency of the evidence, Taylor v. Commonwealth,
724 S .W'2d 223 . 225 /K« .App. 1986\, there are some remaining issues that can be
raised in @n appeal. These include competency to plead guilty;' whether the plea
complied with the requirements of
Alabama, 395 [j .S . 238, 244 . 89 S. Ct
1709, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274 /196gy o subject matte[ jurisdiction and failure to charge a public
offense ;3 and sentencing issues .4 In Roe v. Flores-Ortega, the United States Supreme
Court recognized that "a guilty plea reduces the scope of potentially appealable issues ."
528 U .S. 470 . 480,120 S. Ct. 1029,145 L. Ed. 2d 985 /2000\ (emphasis added) .
/
147 S.W.3d 22 (Ky. 2004). In the present case, Appellant's competency
to enter a plea was raised by defense counsel at the plea hearing with the trial court finding Appellant
competent .
z Johnson v. Commonwealth, 103 S
.W.3d 687, 691 (Ky. 2003) .
4
Ware v. Commonwealth, 84S .W.8d883.385 (KvApp.2OOO)| Hpahes v. Commonwealth, 87SS.W.2d
99 ' 100 (Ky 1994).
Because some issues do survive an express waiver of the right to appeal, the trial
court's amended judgment was in error.
Further, a trial court must allow a qualifying appellant to proceed on appeal in
forma pauperis, even when the trial court is of the opinion the appeal is frivolous .
Otherwise, the result would be the trial court deciding the appeal for a poor person
whereas a person paying the filing fee would have another court, an appellate court,
review the issue . Peters v. Peters, 728 S.W .2d 541 (Ky.App. 1987) .
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court's order of December 13,
2006, which amended the November 17, 2006, judgment to delete the right to appeal .
We remand for reinstatement of the November 17, 2006, "Judgment of Conviction and
Sentence" . Further appeals, if any, should be of that judgment and sentence, filed
within 30 days of the order reinstating said judgment and sentence .
All sitting . All concur .
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT :
Daniel T. Goyette
Louisville Metro Public Defender
200 Advocacy Plaza
719 West Jefferson Street
Louisville, KY 40202
J . David Niehaus
Deputy Appellate Defender
Office of the Louisville Metro Public Defender
200 Advocacy Plaza
719 West Jefferson Street
Louisville, KY 40202
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Jack Conway
Attorney General
David A . Smith
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Criminal Appellate Division
1024 Capital Center Drive
Frankfort, KY 40601
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.