RENDERED: OCTOBER 1, 2021; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2019-CA-1158-MR

MEIESHA SHARP APPELLANT 

v. 

APPEAL FROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT

HONORABLE KAREN L. WILSON, JUDGE

ACTION NOS. 12-CR-00162, 12-CR-00163, AND 12-CR-00192 

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE 

OPINION

AFFIRMING

**   **  **

BEFORE: COMBS, GOODWINE, AND LAMBERT, JUDGES.

COMBS, JUDGE: This is a criminal case in which Appellant, Meiesha Sharp 

(Sharp), appeals from the denial of her motion to vacate her conviction pursuant to 

CR1 60.02. After our review, we affirm.

On September 12, 2012, a Henderson County grand jury indicted 

Sharp on four counts of first-degree robbery, all of which occurred over a two1 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
-2-

week period in June 2012. (Nos. 12-CR-00162, 12-CR-00163, and 12-CR-00192). 

Sharp was also charged federally for a bank robbery that occurred in the same time 

period.

Sharp accepted a plea bargain and pled guilty to the state charges in 

Henderson Circuit Court in exchange for a 15-year sentence to serve on each of the 

robberies to run concurrently with each other and concurrently with Sharp’s 

sentence for her federal conviction in No. 4:12-CR-28-JHM. On October 2, 2014, 

the court entered judgments of conviction and sentence in accordance with the plea 

agreement.

On April 16, 2019, Sharp, pro se, filed a motion pursuant to CR 

60.02, asserting that she is presently serving a 15-year sentence at the Kentucky 

Correctional Institution for Women (KCIW) on the state indictments, which were 

to be run concurrently with her federal conviction; that when she signed the plea 

agreement, she was not notified that the United States District Court would have to 

agree to the concurrent running of the sentences; and that upon being incarcerated 

at KCIW, Sharp was notified “that she will be serving the 15 year sentence at 85% 

in a Kentucky State Prison then released to F.B.O.P.[2] where she would serve a 10 

year sentence at 85% on Federal Conviction 12-CR-28-JHM.” Sharp contended

that if she had known that the plea agreement would result in her serving a total of 

2 Federal Bureau of Prisons.
-3-

25 years at 85% instead of 15 years at 85%, she never would have signed it. Sharp 

requested that her state sentence be amended from 15 years at 85% to 10 years at 

85%, that she serve out its remainder in Kentucky, and that she then be released to 

the F.B.O.P. 

By amended order entered May 6, 2019, the trial court denied Sharp’s 

motion without an evidentiary hearing as follows: 

[Sharp] now moves to vacate the conviction in this 

case pursuant to CR 60.02. She states that her attorney 

did not advise her that Kentucky’s recommendation was 

not binding on the federal court and that there was a 

likelihood that she would have to serve the state sentence 

consecutively to the federal one.

CR 60.02 allows a court, in its discretion, to 

relieve a party of its final judgment if that judgment is 

void or inequitable, or for other reasons of an 

extraordinary nature. Grounds for relief under CR 60.02 

are not the same as under RCr[3] 11.42. Gross v. 

Commonwealth, Ky., 648 S.W.2d 853 (1983). In a 

criminal case, these rules are not overlapping but separate 

and distinct. CR 60.02 is not intended merely as an 

additional opportunity to litigate the same issues which 

were presented or could reasonably have been presented 

by direct appeal or RCr 11.42 proceedings. Id., 856; 

McQueen v. Commonwealth, Ky., 948 S.W.2d 415 

(1997). 

Review of the record shows that the defendant’s 

argument, ineffective assistance of counsel, is one that 

could reasonably have presented [sic] under RCr 11.42. 

One of the defendant’s exhibits is a letter the Department 

of Public Advocacy [(DPA)] wrote to Sharp dated March 

3 Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure. 
-4-

24, 2017, which states that the federal government is not 

bound by state judgments and advises that under federal 

law, conviction of a violent crime enhanced by 

possession of a gun would carry a “mandatory 

consecutive sentence.”4 This letter was sent within the 

three years allowed to file a motion under RCr 11.42.

Further, having reviewed the record, the Court 

does not believe that Sharp has shown that [s]he is 

entitled to relief. First, the Court concludes that the 

motion was not made within a reasonable time. It has 

been over four years since the defendant’s sentencing.

Finally, . . . the Court does not believe that the 

defendant’s allegations show cause for the extraordinary 

relief contemplated by CR 60.02.

Sharp appeals. CR 60.02(f) provides that a court may relieve a party 

from its final judgment for “any other reason of an extraordinary nature justifying 

relief.” The rule further provides that “[t]he motion shall be made within a 

reasonable time[.]” 

Sharp first argues that her CR 60.02 motion was timely and should be 

reviewed on the merits. 

What constitutes a reasonable time in which to move to 

vacate a judgment under CR 60.02 is a matter that 

addresses itself to the discretion of the trial court. . . . 

Absent some flagrant miscarriage of justice an appellant 

court should respect the trial court’s exercise of 

discretion in these circumstances. 

4 The letter, from the DPA office in LaGrange, Kentucky, is actually dated March 27, 2017, and 

it states that it is in response to Sharp’s letter requesting assistance received on March 24, 2017. 

(Supplemental Record, Exhibit D.2 to CR 60.02 Motion). 
-5-

Gross v. Commonwealth, 648 S.W.2d 853, 858 (Ky. 1983). Sharp maintains that 

the trial court abused its discretion in holding that her motion was not made in a 

reasonable time “simply because it had been over four years since she was 

sentenced without acknowledging or accounting for the diligence with which Ms. 

Sharp pursued her case[.]” We cannot agree. 

The trial court explained that it had reviewed the record and that one 

of Sharp’s exhibits was the DPA’s letter of March 27, 2017, to Sharp stating that 

the federal government is not bound by state judgments and that under federal 

law, conviction of a violent crime enhanced by possession of a gun would carry a 

“mandatory consecutive sentence.” The trial court found that “[t]his letter was 

sent within the three years allowed to file a motion under RCr 11.42.”5 

We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in determining 

that Sharp did not file her CR 60.02 motion within a reasonable time.

Sharp next argues that her plea agreement is essentially a contract 

subject to the principles of contract law and that she is entitled to the benefit of her 

bargain, citing, inter alia, Elmore v. Commonwealth, 236 S.W.3d 623 (Ky. App. 

2007). The Commonwealth asserts that the “contract claims” Sharp raises on 

5 RCr 11.42(10) provides that “[a]ny motion under this rule shall be filed within three years after 

the judgment becomes final[.]” (Emphasis added.)
-6-

appeal were not “explicitly mentioned” in her CR 60.02 motion and cannot be 

raised for the first time on appeal. We agree. 

On appeal, a party may only present those issues that

were fully presented to the trial court and, further, may

not bring forward new legal grounds on appeal to

challenge those errors. This rule is a keystone of

Kentucky appellate practice, and the policies

undergirding it remain strong. 

Henderson v. Commonwealth, 438 S.W.3d 335, 343 (Ky. 2014) (footnote omitted). 

In the case before us, the trial court did not accept Sharp’s agreement 

that she was entitled to the relief she sought, and it believed correctly that her 

argument is one that she could have presented under RCr 11.42. It is wellestablished that: 

The structure provided in Kentucky for attacking 

the final judgment of a trial court in a criminal case is not 

haphazard and overlapping, but is organized and 

complete. That structure is set out in the rules related to 

direct appeals, in RCr 11.42, and thereafter in CR 60.02. 

CR 60.02[,] . . . is for relief that is not available by direct 

appeal and not available under RCr 11.42. The movant 

must demonstrate why he is entitled to this special, 

extraordinary relief. Before the movant is entitled to an 

evidentiary hearing, he must affirmatively allege facts 

which, if true, justify vacating the judgment and further 

allege special circumstances that justify CR 60.02 relief.

Gross, 648 S.W.2d at 856. In McQueen v. Commonwealth, 948 S.W.2d 415, 416 

(Ky. 1997), our Supreme Court further explained as follows: 

The interrelationship between CR 60.02 and RCr 11.42 

was carefully delineated in Gross v. Commonwealth, Ky., 
-7-

648 S.W.2d 853 (1983). In a criminal case, these rules 

are not overlapping, but separate and distinct. A 

defendant who is in custody under sentence or on 

probation, parole or conditional discharge, is 

required to avail himself of RCr 11.42 as to any 

ground of which he is aware, or should be aware, 

during the period when the remedy is available to 

him. Civil Rule 60.02 is not intended merely as an 

additional opportunity to relitigate the same issues which 

could “reasonably have been presented” by direct appeal 

or RCr 11.42 proceedings. RCr 11.42(3); Gross v.

Commonwealth, supra, at 855, 856. The obvious 

purpose of this principle is to prevent the relitigation of 

issues which either were or could have been litigated in a 

similar proceeding. As stated in Gross, CR 60.02 was 

enacted as a substitute for the common law writ of coram 

nobis.

The purpose of such a writ was to bring 

before the court that pronounced judgment 

errors in matter of fact which (1) had not 

been put into issue or passed on, (2) were 

unknown and could not have been known to 

the party by the exercise of reasonable 

diligence and in time to have been otherwise 

presented to the court, or (3) which the party 

was prevented from so presenting by duress, 

fear, or other sufficient cause. Black’s Law 

Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 487, 144.

Id. at 856. In summary, CR 60.02 is not a separate 

avenue of appeal to be pursued in addition to other 

remedies, but is available only to raise issues which 

cannot be raised in other proceedings.

McQueen, 948 S.W.2d at 416 (emphases added). 

We agree with the trial court that Sharp could have reasonably -- and 

timely -- presented her claim under RCr 11.42. She failed to do so. Accordingly, 
-8-

CR 60.02 is not available to Sharp as an avenue of relief. We conclude that the 

trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sharp’s motion. 

We affirm the order of the Henderson Circuit Court denying the CR 

60.02 motion.

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:

Andrea Reed

Frankfort, Kentucky

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Daniel Cameron 

Attorney General of Kentucky

Christopher C. Bailey 

Assistant Attorney General

Frankfort, Kentucky