# Jacobs v. Commonwealth

> Court of Appeals of Kentucky · February 7, 1997 · 947 S.W.2d 416

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9769781

## Case

- **Full name:** Johnny JACOBS, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Kentucky
- **Decided:** February 7, 1997
- **Citations:** 947 S.W.2d 416; 1997 Ky. App. LEXIS 7; 1997 WL 46943
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Schroder
- **Judges:** Buckingham, Huddleston, Schroder
- **Cited by:** 16 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9769781

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating “[w]e recognize that in criminal cases such as this the Commonwealth is represented at the trial level by local prosecuting officials. . . . For that reason, we conclude that the notice requirements of [KRS 418.075] must be met in criminal, as well as civil, actions[]”

## Opinion text

SCHRODER, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The facts in this case are relatively simple. A sitting circuit judge recused himself and the chief regional circuit judge appointed a retired judge as a special judge to hear defendant’s case. Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and KRS 26A.020(1) allows the chief justice to appoint a retired judge as a special judge, but neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court’s rules, adopted pursuant to section 112(4) of the Kentucky Constitution, allows a regional circuit judge to make such an appointment.
The majority holds that the appointment is voidable only if there was a timely objection, citing Martin v. Stumbo, 282 Ky. 793 , 140 S.W.2d 405 (1940). I believe it was void from the beginning, as the matter is jurisdictional. The circuit court has jurisdiction of the defendant’s case but only a judge, not an interloper, can conduct the trial. See Ketcham v. Manning, 212 Ky. 325 , 279 S.W. 344 (1926); Pinkleton v. Lueke, 265 Ky., 84 , 95 S.W.2d 1103 (1936); Miller v. Anderson, Ky., 519 S.W.2d 826 (1975). Without authority from our constitution, statutes, or rules adopted pursuant thereto, the appointment has no legal basis. Regency Pheasant Run Ltd. v. Karem, Ky., 860 S.W.2d 755 (1993). Good intentions and competence in the person appointed special judge will not substitute for legal authority any more than recognizing a kangaroo court of the “Freeman” who attempts to set up a parallel government by ignoring the constitution and the ballot box. Kuprion v. Fitzgerald, Ky., 888 S.W.2d 679 (1994).
I believe that the Supreme Court should not only set aside Martin v. Stumbo, supra, and the defendant’s alleged conviction, but also expunge it from the court’s record as well. Bowles v. Manning, 196 Ky. 728 , 245 S.W. 506 (1922).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9769781. Public record. Not legal advice.