specificity standard in Kentucky

2024“Conclusory allegations that counsel was ineffective without a statement of the facts upon which those allegations are based do not meet the rule’s specificity standard and so ‘warrant a summary dismissal of the motion.’” Roach v. Commonwealth, 384 S.W.3d 131, 140 (Ky. 2012) (quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56 , 106 S. Ct. 366 , 88 L.

2024“Conclusory allegations that counsel was ineffective without a statement of the facts upon which those allegations are based do not meet the rule’s specificity standard and so warrant a summary dismissal of the motion.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2026“Insufficiently specific motions, such as moving summarily for a directed verdict or making a general assertion of insufficient evidence, are not enough to satisfy the specificity requirement.” Early v. Commonwealth, 470 S.W.3d 729, 733 (Ky. 2015).

2022The Commonwealth cites Early v. Commonwealth, 470 S.W.3d 729, 733 (Ky. 2015), to argue that “[i]nsufficiently specific motions, such as moving summarily for a directed verdict or making a general assertion of insufficient evidence, are not enough to satisfy the specificity requirement.”4 To preserve an error for appeal, a motion “must state specific grounds for relief and should identify which elements of the alleged offense the Commonwealth has failed to prove.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted).

2025RCr 11.42(2); see Williams v. Commonwealth, 336 S.W.3d 42, 50 (Ky. 2011).

2012See Williams v. Commonwealth, 336 S.W.3d 42 (Ky.2011) (RCr 11.42 movant’s failure to specify what evidence unsubpoe-naed witnesses would have provided was fatal to his claim that counsel was ineffective in having failed to subpoena them.).

2024“RCr 11.42 motions are not intended to conduct further discovery or fishing expeditions.” Prescott v. -4- Commonwealth, 572 S.W.3d 913, 926 (Ky. App. 2019).

2024See Reg’l Jail Auth. v. Tackett, 770 S.W.2d 225, 228 (Ky. 1989) (“The Court of Appeals is without authority to review issues not raised in or decided by the trial court.”).

2022“It is not the purpose of RCr 11.42 to permit a convicted defendant to retry issues which could and should have been raised in the original proceeding, nor those that were raised in the trial court and upon an appeal considered by this court.” Leonard v. Commonwealth, 279 S.W.3d 151, 156 (Ky. 2009) (quoting Thacker v. Commonwealth, 476 S.W.2d 838, 839 (Ky. 1972)).

2022“It is not the purpose of RCr 11.42 to permit a convicted defendant to retry issues which could and should have been raised in the original proceeding, nor those that were raised in the trial court and upon an appeal considered by this court.” Leonard v. Commonwealth, 279 S.W.3d 151, 156 (Ky. 2009) (quoting Thacker v. Commonwealth, 476 S.W.2d 838, 839 (Ky. 1972)).

2015Potts v. Commonwealth, 172 S.W.3d 345, 348 (Ky. 2005).

2015See Commonwealth v. Jones, 283 S.W.3d 665, 669 (Ky. 2009) (“to preserve an error based upon the insufficiency of the evidence the defendant .... must renew his motion at the close of all evidence”). • Early maintains that his initial motion for a directed verdict was more than a “generalized motion” and, although the video record contains no indication of renewal, he asserts that the Court should assume he renewed such motion during an unrecorded discussion regarding jury instructions.

2008Id.; see also McCracken County Fiscal Court v. Graves, 885 S.W.2d 307, 314 (Ky.1994).