VIRGIL LEE KELLY V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IMPORTANT NOTICE
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION
THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED ."
PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C),
THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE
CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER
CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER,
UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS,
RENDERED AFTERJANUARY l, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR
CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED
OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE
BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION
BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED
DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE
ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE
DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE
ACTION.
RENDERED : MARCH 18, 2010
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
uyr8xCC8
(~.qurf of
2009-SC-000090-TG
VIRGIL LEE KELLY
DAME
L
8 o Kf~lv_K~ b- c .
iA1C1T
ON APPEAL FROM CLARK CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE GARY D. PAYNE, SPECIAL JUDGE
NO. 03-CR-00046
V.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
AFFIRMING
Appellant Virgil Lee Kelly was convicted in the Clark Circuit Court of
first-degree assault, first-degree sexual abuse, and being a first-degree
persistent felony offender. Enhanced pursuant to the persistent felony offender
statute, I Appellant's total sentence was twenty-five years for the assault ,
conviction and fifteen years for the sexual abuse conviction, ordered to be
served consecutively for a total sentence of forty years' imprisonment .
Appellant filed an appeal in this Court, which resulted in an opinion affirming
in part, reversing in part, and remanding for a retrospective competency
hearing. Kelly v. Commonwealth, No. 2004-SC-000786-MR, 2006 VVL 3386636
1 KRS 532 .080.
(Ky. Nov. 22, 2006) . Before this Court is an appeal from the trial court's
finding that Appellant was competent to stand trial.
After this Court's remand, the case sat until October 3, 2007, when
Appellant filed a "Motion To Vacate Judgment And Order Immediate Release" in
the trial court. The motion contended that the Clark Circuit Court had 120
days to conduct the retrospective competency hearing, and that its failure to do
so entitled Appellant to immediate release.
After the trial court denied Appellant's motion to vacate and release, it
scheduled-and, on July 17, 2008, conducted-the retrospective competency
hearing. The trial court found Appellant competent in an order filed July 18,
2008. After a motion to alter, amend, or vacate was denied, Appellant filed a
notice of appeal, which was inadvertently docketed with the Court of Appeals.
On recommendation of the Court of Appeals, the appeal was transferred to this
Court.
This Court's November 22, 2006 Memorandum Opinion remanding did
not mention any time limit for the trial court to conduct a retrospective
competency hearing. However, Appellant refers to the opinion's discussion of
the statutory duty3 to conduct a competency hearing, and to its discussion of
Thompson v. Commonwealth, 56 S.W.3d 406 (Ky. 2001) .
In Thompson, the Court determined that a competency hearing is
mandatory "[o]nce facts known to a trial court are sufficient to place a
2 No. 2008-CA-002112 .
3 See KRS 504 .100 .
defendant's competence to stand trial in question[ .]" Id. at 408 (quoting Mills v.
Commonwealth, 996 S.W .2d 473, 486 (Ky. 1999)) . The Thompson Court
concluded that, while the better practice is to conduct the competency hearing
before the trial, a retrospective competency hearing is permissible if the hearing
is adequate to arrive at an assessment that is not mere speculation as to the
defendant's competency at the time of trial . 56 S .W.3d at 409 (citing Martin v.
Estelle, 583 F.2d 1373, 1374 (5th Cir. 1978)) . In this Court's November 22,
2006 opinion in Appellant's case, we stated, "Accordingly . . . the case must be
remanded to the trial court for a retrospective hearing to determine whether
Appellant was competent to stand trial, in accordance with Thompson v.
Commonwealth ." 2006 WL 3386636, at *4 (internal citation omitted) .
Appellant contends Thompson mandates a retrospective competency
hearing be held within 120 days, and the failure to do so entitles him to
immediate release. We disagree . The Thompson opinion did order Thompson's
competency hearing to be held within 120 days, but not in the context of the
due process requirements for a retrospective competency hearing.
Thompson held that "a retrospective competency hearing is permissible
depending on the facts of a particular case ." 56 S .W.3d at 409 (overruling
Hayden v. Commonwealth, 563 S .W.2d 720 (Ky. 1978)) . The Thompson Court
remanded the matter to the trial court "for the limited purpose of determining
whether a retrospective competency hearing is permissible in this case, and, if
so, to conduct such an evidentiary hearing . . . ." 56 S.W.3d at 410 . The Court
then abated the remainder of Thompson's appeal pending the results of the
matter of competency on remand . Id.
Instead of remanding for proceedings consistent with the opinion, the
Thompson Court remanded with detailed instructions, including instructions to
"if necessary, conduct a competency hearing within 120 days from the entry of
this Opinion and Order ." Id. The instructions went on to outline other
procedural issues . Id. These instructions were particular to Thompson's case,
and not a standard for all retrospective competency hearings.
Appellant is correct that a long time had passed between the remand and
the retrospective competency hearing in this case. However, there is no rule or
statute that would require us to vacate the conviction and release Appellant.
Appellant could have filed a motion for a hearing in the trial court, to put the
court on notice and give it a reasonable opportunity to schedule a hearing . If
this was not effective, Appellant could have utilized CR 76.36 to obtain a writ of
mandamus to require the trial judge to act. No reversible error occurred .
Appellant also contends error in his not being present before the trial
court at a June 12, 2008 hearing. Thompson requires the trial court to
determine whether a retrospective competency hearing is permissible in a
particular case . 56 S .W . 3d at 410 . Appellant argues that, at the June 12
hearing, the trial court made this determination in his absence .
However, the record reveals that the trial court did not take any evidence
nor did it make any determination on June 12 . Instead, the court scheduled a
competency hearing . 4 Because the trial court did not take any evidence nor
make any determination on June 12, there was no error in Appellant not being
present.
Appellant does not allege error in the trial court failing to make an
independent finding as to the permissibility of a retrospective competency
hearing. In addition, after the trial court found Appellant to have been
competent to stand trial, on Appellant's motion, the court made additional
findings of fact that a competency hearing was permissible . No reversible error
occurred. Accordingly, the retrospective finding of competency by the Clark
Circuit Court is affirmed.
All sitting. All concur.
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Trevor Wayne Wells
Miller & Wells, PLLC
300 East Main Street, Suite 360
Lexington, KY 40507
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE :
Jack Conway
Attorney General
Gregory C. Fuchs
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Attorney General
Office of Criminal Appeals
1024 Capital Center Drive
Frankfort, KY 40601-8204
4 After the June 12, 2008 hearing, the trial judge retired and was replaced by a special
judge, who conducted the actual competency hearing and made all findings .
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.