Title: DONALD RAY VIOLETT V HONORABLE DARREN W . PECKLER JUDGE, BOYLE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

State: kentucky

Issuer: Kentucky Supreme Court

Document:

IMPORTANTNOTICE NOT TO BEPUBLISHED OPINION THIS OPINIONISDESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THERULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28 (4) (c), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHEDAND SHALL NOTBE CITED OR USED AS AUTHORITYINANYOTHER CASE INANY COURTOF THIS STATE. DONALD RAY VIOLETT V HONORABLE DARREN W. PECKLER JUDGE, BOYLE CIRCUIT COURT APPELLEE AND ,*uyrtme (~ourf of 2002-SC-0159-MR APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS BOYLE CIRCUIT COURT NO . 01-CI-0426 2000-CA-2624 RENDERED : FEBRUARY 20, 2003 NOT TO BE PUBL COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY REAL PARTY IN INTEREST MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING I . BACKGROUND Appellant was previously convicted in the Warren Circuit Court of multiple counts of first-degree sexual abuse and first-degree rape,' and this Court affirmed those convictions . 2 Recently, Appellant filed a habeas corpus petition in the Boyle 2Violett v . Commonwealth , Ky., 907 S.W.2d 773 (1995) . 'The precise number of counts on each offense and the total aggregate sentence to be served are both disputed by Appellant . The Commonwealth contends that he was convicted of one hundred fifty seven (157) counts of First Degree Sexual Abuse and five (5) counts of First Degree Rape and was sentenced to a total of seven hundred fifty four (754) years in prison . Appellant contends that the Final Judgment Order details that the correct count includes one hundred twenty three (123) counts of First Degree Sexual Abuse and five (5) counts of First Degree Rape, for a total of six hundred sixty nine (669) years in prison . Regardless, this dispute is not relevant to a resolution of this appeal . Circuit Court .3 During the pendency of those proceedings, he filed an original action in the Court of Appeals seeking a writ of mandamus compelling Judge Peckler, the trial judge, to disqualify "the Office of Attorney General and /or William Daniels II from further representation of [the Commonwealth]." In support of his petition, Appellant claimed that the Office of Attorney General filed or gave false information that led to his conviction being affirmed by this Court and the denial of other petitions that he previously filed for post-conviction relief . He alleges that he filed a motion under CR 11 because of the "false information," but that "Judge Peckler refuses to rule on [the motion]" . The Court of Appeals summarily denied the petition, and Appellant now seeks relief in this Court from the denial . After a review of the record, we too do not find sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary form of relief provided by a writ of mandamus . Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals . If . ANALYSIS The issuance of a writ is a remedy applied in very limited circumstances. A prima facie writ of mandamus showing incorporates two (2) elements when the lower court is acting within its jurisdiction : (1) inadequacy of remedy by appeal, and (2) irreparable injury .5 Appellant fails to satisfy either prong. 3Donald Ray Violett v . Thomas R . Lewis James L Morgan Kentucky Corrections Cabinet , Boyle Circuit Court, Case No . 01-CI-426 . 4James v . Shadoan . Ky., 58 S.W .3d 884, (2001) (holding that a writ of prohibition should only be granted in exceptional circumstances) ; Walmart Stores v . Dickinson ,Ky., 29 S.W .3d 796,800 (2000) (explaining that a writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy) (citing Bender v . Eaton . Ky., 343 S.W.2d 799, 800 (1961)) ; Commonwealth v . Maricle . Ky ., 10 S .W.3d 117 (1999) (reiterating that a writ is a remedy subject to rare application) . 5Kentucky Labor Cabinet v . Graham Ky ., 43 S.W.3d 247 (2001); Commonwealth v . Maricle. Ky., 10 S.W3d 117 (1999); Potter v . Eli Lilly . Ky ., 926 S.W.2d 449 (1996) ; Futrell v . Shadoan . Ky ., 828 S.W .2d 649(1992) . First, we would point out that CR 11 specifically provides that "[t]he Court shall postpone ruling on Rule 11 motions filed in the litigation until after entry of a final judgment . ,6 No final judgment has been entered on Appellant's habeas corpus petition . Accordingly, Judge Peckler is acting properly in not ruling on Appellant's CR 11 motion . Next, we note that Appellant fails to present any reason justifying a determination by this Court that he does not have an adequate remedy by appeal. To the contrary, claims of prosecutorial misconduct are frequently addressed in appeals from judgments of trial courts, and the appellate remedy will adequately address Appellant's claims in his pending habeas corpus action . We find that Appellant has an adequate remedy by appeal. To satisfy the irreparable injury prong of the analysis, Appellant must show that grievous prejudice will befall him if he is denied the relief requested .' Again, Appellant has advanced no compelling arguments in this regard sufficient to justify granting relief under the writ rubric . Accordingly, we also find that Appellant has failed to show irreparable injury. Ill. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we affirm the Court of Appeals . All concur. 6 CR11 . 7Bender v . Eaton . Ct . App ., 343 S.W .2d 799, 801 (2000) (defining the parameters of irreparable injury as something of a ruinous nature) . APPELLANT : Donald Ray Violett #114842 Northpoint Training Center PO Box 479 Burgin, Kentucky 40310 APPELLEE : Hon . Darren Peckler Judge, Boyle Circuit Court Boyle County Courthouse 321 Main Street Danville, Kentucky 40422 COUNSEL FOR REAL PARTY IN INTEREST : A . B . Chandler, III Attorney General Stuart W. Cobb Assistant Attorney General Civil & Environmental Law Division Office of the Attorney General PO Box 2000 Frankfort, Kentucky 40602-2000