Appeals court upholds conviction for man who was pardoned by Bevin, then prosecuted by feds

A Kentucky man who received a state pardon from former Gov. Matt Bevin for a drug-related homicide but later went to federal prison over the same death has lost his bid to overturn the conviction.

Patrick Baker had petitioned the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to set aside his conviction, but a three-judge panel of the court instead upheld it, ruling against Baker on every point his attorneys raised.

The decision was released Thursday.

Baker, formerly of Laurel County, was convicted in state court in 2017 of reckless homicide in connection with the death of Donald Mills, a drug dealer in Knox County who was shot to death when two men invaded his home to rob him of pain pills and money.

A state judge sentenced Baker, who is now 44, to 19 years in prison.

Just two years later, however, Bevin commuted Baker’s sentence and pardoned him on Dec. 6, 2019.

Bevin said in his order that the evidence against Baker was “sketchy at best,” even though the Kentucky Court of Appeals had said in an earlier ruling that the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming.

Bevin, a Republican who had lost reelection in Nov. 2019, issued hundreds of pardons and commutations at the end of his term, but his decision to free Baker was among several that caused an outcry.

The reason in Baker’s case was that some of his family members had held a political fundraiser for Bevin in 2018, pulling in $21,500 to pay debt from his 2015 campaign, according to state records.

State lawmakers from both parties slammed Bevin over the pardons.

Two Democrats in the legislature said the pardon for Baker raised an appearance of corruption, though Bevin denied politics played a role in his decision.

Federal authorities picked up cases against some of the people Bevin pardoned. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives opened a new investigation of Baker in connection with Mills’ death.

A federal grand jury charged him with murdering Mills during the commission of a drug crime.

Attorneys for Baker argued the new prosecution violated Baker’s right not to be punished twice for the same crime.

However, U.S. District Judge Claria Horn Boom said the law allows different sovereign governments — the state and the U.S. — to prosecute a person based on the same conduct, and that the federal charge was different from the ones Baker faced in state court.

At his federal trial in August 2021, Baker denied killing Mills, and his attorneys pointed to a convicted felon who lived in the area as the killer.

Several witnesses undermined Baker’s story, however.

Nathan Wagoner, who said he had used drugs with Baker, said Baker was in a financial bind because of his addiction to pain pills and that Baker told him about an idea to rob a drug dealer.

Another witness, Christopher Wagner, said he went with Baker to try to rob Mills. Baker had an idea to pose as police to intimidate Mills — they expected to get up to $200,000 in cash and hundreds of pills, Wagner said.

Wagner testified that after Baker kicked in the door of Mills’ mobile home early in the morning, he took Mills’ wife and children to a bedroom to watch them while Baker was with Mills in another bedroom trying to find drugs and money.

Wagner said he heard shots and that as they fled, Baker said he had to shoot Mills because Mills pulled a gun.

Baker’s ex-wife also said Baker told her he shot Mills.

A jury convicted Baker after deliberating for a little over six hours.

Boom sentenced Baker to 42 years in prison in January 2022, but gave him credit for the 30 months he served in state prison before his trial and after his conviction in state court, making his federal sentence 39 years and six months.

Baker raised several arguments in his appeal, including that the federal government’s decision to prosecute him was vindictive.

That argument fell short for several reasons, the appeal panel said in Thursday’s ruling, including the separate sovereign doctrine — that the state and federal governments can pursue separate prosecutions — and that federal prosecutors have broad discretion in decisions to charge people.

Baker did not present any facts to suggest that federal prosecutors acted as “rubber stamps” for the state instead of using their discretion, and did not show any complicity between state and federal prosecutors, the appeals panel said.

Baker also didn’t show the federal prosecution was unreasonable because new evidence — Wagner’s testimony — was developed between the time Baker was convicted in state court and his federal trial.

That new evidence provided a possible explanation, unrelated to his pardon by Bevin, for the decision to prosecute Baker in federal court, the appeals judges said.

The judges did say they were “troubled” by the timing of the prosecution in federal court “and by the impression that Baker may not have received such a lengthy federal sentence but for his acceptance of a state-law pardon.”

However, the appeals judges said they could not conclude that Boom abused her discretion by finding there was not reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness against Baker under the circumstances.

“Cases may arise in which the facts demonstrate that the federal government had a stake in defeating a defendant’s exercise of their state-law rights, and thus under such circumstances, a defendant’s due-process rights may be violated by a subsequent prosecution by a separate sovereign,” the appeals panel said. “In this case, however, Baker has not made such a showing.”

Baker also argued the evidence was not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed Mills during the commission of a drug-trafficking conspiracy.

However, the appeals judges said there was sufficient evidence presented at the trial for the jury to conclude Baker, Wagner and another man conspired to rob Mills for the purpose of distributing the pain pills they took.

Another argument Baker’s attorneys made on appeal is that the government didn’t present sufficient evidence that he acted with malice aforethought in killing Mills. He pointed to testimony from Wagner and others that Baker told them he shot Mills in the chest after Mills pulled a gun, indicating he didn’t go into the house intending to shoot him.

However, Mills’ wife testified she didn’t hear a struggle or fight before the shooting “which cuts against Baker’s self-defense theory,” the appeals judges said.

What’s more, the appeals court has ruled in an earlier case that aiming a gun in the victim’s direction and firing it supports a finding of specific intent, a higher standard than malice aforethought, the appeals judges said.

Finally, Baker’s attorneys argued Boom erred by denying his request for a hearing on whether Wagoner received an agreement for a reduced sentence in return for pointing the finger at Baker, and if so whether Wagoner lied when he said he hadn’t been promised such a deal.

Wagoner did get his sentence cut after testifying against Baker, from nearly 12 years down to just over seven years.

However, the appeals judges said Baker didn’t provide any information to suggest Wagoner had an agreement or understanding with the government before testifying.

As a result, Boom didn’t err in denying a hearing on the issue, the appeals panel said.

The panel pointed to an earlier ruling that said the fact that a witness’ sentence was cut after testifying was not evidence that a deal existed prior to the testimony.

Melinda Mills, the sister of Donald Mills, told the Herald-Leader federal officials called her late Thursday night to let her know Baker’s appeal had been denied. She said she called other family members after hearing the news.

“I actually didn’t sleep much last night, I was so excited,” she said. “We are very happy.”

Baker is serving his sentence at a prison in West Virginia. His current release date is January 2055.