Title: ALFRED W. HAWKS V. HONORABLE HAROLD Y. SAUNDERS (JUDGE, SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT) AND COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY ()

State: kentucky

Issuer: Kentucky Supreme Court

Document:

IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER, UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS, RENDERED AFTER JANUARY l, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE ACTION . ,!Z~uyrrmr (~vurf of ~irtl 2009-SC-000405-MR MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING RENDERED : NOVEMBER 25, 2009 NOT- T-0 F Pt LISTH f __ +?-4.c4 ALFRED W . HAWKS APP : ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS V. CASE NO . 2008-CA-001661-OA SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT NOS. 83-CR-00015, 83-CR-00016, AND 83-CR-00017 HONORABLE HAROLD Y. SAUNDERS (JUDGE, SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT) AND COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY (REAL PARTY IN INTEREST) APPELLEES Alfred Hawks appeals from a Court of Appeals decision denying his petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus against the trial court judge' who, in 1983, signed ajudgment convicting Hawks of murder and other offenses following Hawks's guilty plea . Hawks is now serving a sentence of life in prison under that judgment. Hawks contends that the Court of Appeals erred in denying his petition for a writ because he claims that the trial court failed to determine his mental competency before accepting his guilty pleas . For that reason, Hawks argues Hawks filed his petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus against Harold Y. Saunders, who was the Judge of the Shelby Circuit Court in early 1983 and who entered the finaljudgment of conviction and sentence against Hawks. However, Judge Saunders is no longer on the bench. that his murder conviction and life sentence are "null, void, and unenforceable . . . ." He asks this Court to order the trial court to conduct a retrospective competency hearing. We express no opinion on whether Hawks might be entitled to a retrospective competency hearing or other relief on competency grounds upon a proper motion filed with the trial court under Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11 .42 or Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02 . But Hawks clearly was not entitled to relief from the Court of Appeals upon his petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus . Thus, we affirm . Simply stated, the Court of Appeals could not grant a writ of prohibition or mandamus in a case unless the trial court were, in some manner, doing something that affected that case . Our precedent states, A writ of prohibition may be granted upon a showing that (1) the lower court is proceeding or is about to proceed outside of its jurisdiction and there is no remedy through an application to an intermediate court; or (2) that the lower court is acting or is about to act erroneously, although within its jurisdiction, and there exists no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise and great injustice and irreparable injury will result if the petition is not granted . 2 Here, the trial court entered its final judgment in 1983 ; but Hawks has not alleged that it has done anything affecting this judgment of conviction and sentence since then . As the Court of Appeals states, "The Shelby Circuit Court is currently not acting with respect to Hawks'[s] conviction ." Hoskins v . Maricle , 150 S.W.3d 1, 10 (Ky . 2004) . Because the trial court has done nothing affecting Hawks' conviction or sentence since entering final judgment in 1983 and because Hawks has not shown that the trial court is threatening to do anything affecting his conviction or sentence, Hawks cannot show that the trial court is proceeding--or about to proceed-outside its jurisdiction . And he cannot show that the trial court is acting or about to act incorrectly within its jurisdiction . Also, Hawks cannot show that he lacks an adequate remedy for his allegations that the final judgment is invalid because RCr 11 .42 or CR 60.02 motions to challenge the validity of the judgment to the trial court were available . So Hawks clearly has not shown that he was entitled to a writ under our standard . Because Hawks did not meet the standard of showing entitlement to a writ, the Court of Appeals did not err in denying his petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus . We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. All sitting. All concur. COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Alfred Wayne Hawks, Pro se Inmate No. 081525 Kentucky State Penitentiary 3001 West Highway 146 Eddyville, Kentucky 42038-5128 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY (REAL PARTY IN INTEREST) : Jack Conway Attorney General of Kentuc Gregory C . Fuchs Assistant Attorney General . Office of Attorney General Criminal Appellate Division 1024 Capital Center Drive Frankfort, Kentucky 40601-8204 Judge Harold Y. Saunders P. O . Box 307 Shelbyville, Kentucky 40065