Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Madden v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

January 18, 2019

WILLIAM MADDEN APPELLANT
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE

          APPEAL FROM ALLEN CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE JANET J. CROCKER, JUDGE ACTION NO. 15-CR-00017

          BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT ROY ALYETTE DURHAM II FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY

          BRIEF FOR APPELLEE ANDY BESHEAR ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KENTUCKY JOHN PAUL VARO ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY

          BEFORE: CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE; ACREE AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

          OPINION

          CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE

         An Allen County Circuit Court jury convicted William Madden of third-degree assault, first-degree criminal mischief, and being a first-degree persistent felony offender. Madden now appeals from these convictions, and raises four issues: (1) the trial court erred when it failed to timely follow the procedures required by Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); (2) Madden suffered undue prejudice when the trial court denied his motion for a continuance on the eve of trial; (3) the trial court erred when it denied Madden's motion for a directed verdict after the Commonwealth's case-in-chief; and (4) the trial court's denial of a missing evidence instruction was unduly prejudicial. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court on each of the foregoing issues.

         BACKGROUND

         The convictions from which Madden now appeals arose from events which took place on November 6, 2014, in which Madden, who was at that time incarcerated at the Allen County Detention Center, purportedly broke a window of his cell door and spit on a corrections officer. At Madden's two-day trial, the Commonwealth called three witnesses to the incident: Deputy Jailers Kenneth Pardue, Angela Payne, and Nick Pierce, as well as the Allen County Jailer, Larry Piper.

         Deputy Pardue testified that he was in the detention center's control room with Deputy Payne when the incident began. The deputies had just finished nightly "store call," where inmates are sold phone cards and other items. Madden was in a cell with approximately four or five other inmates, and such cell was around forty feet from the control room. The cell contained two rooms where the inmates sleep known as "pods," as well as a day room or foyer-type area in front of the pods.

         Both Deputy Pardue and Deputy Pierce testified that they sold Madden a phone card during store call, but Madden called the control room from a speaker in the cell demanding another phone card. The deputies declined, as they had completed store call for the evening. Deputy Pardue testified that Madden got extremely angry and started "hollering, raising hell, [and] beating on the door." Madden was the only individual whom Deputy Pardue could hear. Subsequently, both Deputy Pardue and Deputy Pierce heard one "loud pop." At that point, Deputy Pardue walked to the cell, which he estimated took roughly thirty seconds, and saw that the glass in the door had been shattered. He also saw Madden standing in the day room area of the cell, alone, between the door and the shower area. At that point, Deputy Pardue testified that he did not know what had caused the damage to the door, as Madden could not have broken it with his fists and everything else in the cell was bolted down.

         Deputy Pardue returned to the control room and retrieved Deputy Pierce, and both deputies went back to the cell, where Deputy Pierce testified that Madden was the only inmate in the foyer area that he could see. Both deputies testified that Madden was mad, pacing, and using foul language, and all the other inmates were in the pods with the doors closed. The deputies called dispatch, and once the police arrived, Madden was removed from the cell, placed in a restraint chair, where he was strapped down at his feet, arms, waist, and shoulders, and moved to a separate room with the door open. Madden's head and neck remained free. Both deputies testified that Madden was calm while he was being placed in the restraint chair, but once the police left, he became angry again and continued to "raise hell." The deputies further testified that none of the other inmates came out of the pods until Madden was removed from the cell.

         Deputy Pardue and Deputy Pierce returned to the cell later to investigate and discovered that the showerhead, although not out of place, was the only item in the cell that could have been removed and that was solid enough to break the glass. The showerhead was not damaged, but it was solid metal and matched the hole in the glass. The showerhead was photographed, but no fingerprints were taken.

         Later that evening, Deputy Pierce went to check on Madden in the restraint chair. Madden continued to be verbally abusive and extremely angry. Deputy Pierce testified that he walked up behind Madden and looked over him. At that point, Madden moved his head back and spit upwards. Deputy Pierce jumped back to avoid the spit hitting his face, but it landed on his shirt. Deputy Pierce showed Deputy Pardue and Deputy Payne the spit before washing it off. The deputies then put a "spit mask" on Madden to avoid any further incidents.

         Jailer Piper testified that it cost $2, 163.62 to fix the broken window. The jury convicted Madden of third-degree assault, first-degree criminal mischief, and being a persistent felony offender in the first degree and imposed consecutive ten-year sentences. Thereafter, the trial court imposed the jury's verdict but ordered the sentences to run concurrently. This appeal followed.

         Further facts will be developed as required to address the specific issues presented.

         ANALYSIS

         I. FARETTA HEARING

         Madden first argues that the trial court failed to timely establish whether his waiver of representation was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily as required by Faretta. At Madden's arraignment hearing on April 21, 2015, Madden informed the court of a conflict with his court-appointed counsel, Mr. Roemer. The following exchange occurred between Madden and the trial court:

Court: At this time, you are before this court for arraignment. Are you requesting that the court appoint an attorney to represent you, sir?
Madden: Um. I think I've made it apparent before that I don't approve of Mr. Roemer. I have a conflict with him, so if that's who you intend on appointing me, I'm afraid I can't accept his counsel.
Court: So the alternative, sir, is that, do you desire to represent yourself?
Madden: No.
Court: Well, you can't have it both ways, Mr. Madden. You can either have a court-appointed attorney, which is Mr. Roemer, or you can represent yourself, sir.
Madden: Well, as I said, I have a conflict with Mr. Roemer. If my only other option is to represent myself, then that's what I'll do.
Court: Alright, and so then Mr. Madden, can you tell me have you ever studied law before?
Madden: I've read some law books.
Court: Okay. Have you ever represented yourself in any other criminal matter before, sir?
Madden: I've requested to, but I never have.
Court: Do you realize that you are charged with two Class D felonies, assault third-degree on an inmate and criminal mischief first-degree, that if convicted as charged could be potentially enhanced to 20 years as a persistent felony offender, first-degree. Do you understand that, sir?
Madden: No, I believe I was charged with assault on a corrections officer.
Court: Alright, and so you've been charged with assault, third-degree. You've been charged with criminal mischief first-degree, both of which are Class D felonies which carry a minimum sentence of one year, a maximum sentence of five. You have also been indicted in the status offense of being a PFO first, which carries ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.