outcome hearing in Kentucky

2026However, our Supreme Court has held that an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary when the appellant cannot show prejudice as required by Strickland: “Where the record is clear that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim would ultimately fail the prejudice prong of Strickland, regardless of the outcome of a hearing on the deficiency prong, the trial court should be affirmed even in the absence of such a hearing.” Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Searight, 423 S.W.3d 226, 231 (Ky. 2014)).

2024Cf. Haley v. Commonwealth, 586 S.W.3d 744 , 751 (Ky. App. 2019) (“Where the record is clear that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim would ultimately fail the prejudice prong of Strickland, regardless of the outcome of a hearing on the deficiency prong, the trial court should be affirmed even in the absence of such a hearing.”) (citing Commonwealth v. Searight, 423 S.W.3d 226, 231 (Ky. 2014)).

2025Maggard v. Int’l Harvester Co., 508 S.W.2d 777, 783 (Ky. 1974).

2025Maggard v. Int’l Harvester Co., 508 S.W.2d 777, 783 (Ky. 1974).

2026However, our Supreme Court has held that an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary when the appellant cannot show prejudice as required by Strickland: “Where the record is clear that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim would ultimately fail the prejudice prong of Strickland, regardless of the outcome of a hearing on the deficiency prong, the trial court should be affirmed even in the absence of such a hearing.” Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Searight, 423 S.W.3d 226, 231 (Ky. 2014)).

2021Thus, on appellate review, we cannot determine from the record whether counsel’s decision “was trial strategy, or ‘an abdication of advocacy.’” Hodge v. Commonwealth, 68 S.W.3d 338, 345 (Ky. 2001) (quoting Austin v. Bell, 126 F.3d 843, 849 (6th Cir. 1997)). -6- However, in Commonwealth v. Searight, 423 S.W.3d 226, 231 (Ky. 2014), the Kentucky Supreme Court explained that if the lower court ultimately acted properly in denying an RCr 11.42 motion on prejudice grounds without a hearing, a reviewing court would act in error to order “a nugatory hearing to determine trial strategy.” Therefore, “[w

2025Ashcraft, 559 S.W.3d at 816-17 (footnote omitted). -13- (c) Without support of substantial evidence on the whole record; (d) Arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion; (e) Based on an ex parte communication which substantially prejudiced the rights of any party and likely affected the outcome of the hearing; (f) Prejudiced by a failure of the person conducting a proceeding to be disqualified pursuant to KRS 13B.040(2); or (g) Deficient as otherwise provided by law.

2024See Davis, 620 S.W.3d at 30 (“To determine if an error is palpable, ‘an appellate court must consider whether on the whole case there is a substantial possibility that the result would have been any different.” (quoting Commonwealth v. McIntosh, 646 S.W.2d 43, 45 (Ky. 1983))).

2021KRS 13B.160 provides for a further appeal in this Court: “Any aggrieved party may appeal any final judgment of the Circuit Court under this chapter to the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.” This Court’s standard of review in an appeal from an administrative action “is limited to determining whether the decision was erroneous as a matter of law.” McNutt Construction/First General Services v. Scott, 40 S.W.3d 854, 860 (Ky. 2001).

2021Thus, on appellate review, we cannot determine from the record whether counsel’s decision “was trial strategy, or ‘an abdication of advocacy.’” Hodge v. Commonwealth, 68 S.W.3d 338, 345 (Ky. 2001) (quoting Austin v. Bell, 126 F.3d 843, 849 (6th Cir. 1997)). -6- However, in Commonwealth v. Searight, 423 S.W.3d 226, 231 (Ky. 2014), the Kentucky Supreme Court explained that if the lower court ultimately acted properly in denying an RCr 11.42 motion on prejudice grounds without a hearing, a reviewing court would act in error to order “a nugatory hearing to determine trial strategy.” Therefore, “[w

2017“Judicial review of an administrative decision is limited to a determination of whéther the agency acted within the constraints of its statutory powers, whether the agency’s procedures afforded procedural due process, and whether the agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence of record.” Carreer v. Cabinet for Health & Family Servs., 339 S.W.3d 477, 481 (Ky. App. 2010).

2014“Judicial review of an administrative agency’s action is concerned with the question of arbitrariness.” Commonwealth, Transportation Cabinet, Department of Vehicle Regulation v. Cornell, 796 S.W.2d 591, 594 (Ky.App.1990), citing American Beauty Homes Corporation v. Louisville & Jefferson County Planning & Zoning Commission, 379 S.W.2d 450, 456 (Ky.1964).

2014“Judicial review of an administrative agency’s action is concerned with the question of arbitrariness.” Commonwealth, Transportation Cabinet, Department of Vehicle Regulation v. Cornell, 796 S.W.2d 591, 594 (Ky.App.1990), citing American Beauty Homes Corporation v. Louisville & Jefferson County Planning & Zoning Commission, 379 S.W.2d 450, 456 (Ky.1964).