Supreme Court of Kentucky

2021-SC-0164-MR

ALAN HUMMEL APPELLANT 

v. 

ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS

NO. 2020-CA-1475

KENTON CIRCUIT COURT NO. 06-CR-00580

GREGORY M. BARTLETT APPELLEE 

AND 

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY REAL PARTY IN INTEREST/

APPELLEE 

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

The Petition for Rehearing filed by the Appellant of the Opinion of the 

Court rendered December 16, 2021, is DENIED. That Opinion is, however, 

modified and replaced by the attached Opinion.

All sitting. All concur. 

ENTERED: June 16, 2022

_______________________________________

CHIEF JUSTICE
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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION

THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED “NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.”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THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE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UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS,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 1, 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BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED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.

 
RENDERED: DECEMBER 16, 2022

MODIFIED: JUNE 16, 2022

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Supreme Court of Kentucky

2021-SC-0164-MR

ALAN HUMMEL APPELLANT 

v. 

ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS

NO. 2020-CA-1475

KENTON CIRCUIT COURT NO. 06-CR-00580

GREGORY M. BARTLETT APPELLEE 

AND 

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY REAL PARTY IN INTEREST/

APPELLEE 

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT

AFFIRMING

Alan Hummel appeals to this Court from the Court of Appeals’ order that 

denied as moot his application for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court 

to rule on his post-conviction motions, the trial court having ruled on

Hummel’s motions during the pendency of the writ action. We affirm the Court 

of Appeals.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The trial court entered judgment in 2010, sentencing Hummel to life in 

prison following his conviction for first-degree rape, third-degree rape, and for 

being a second-degree persistent felony offender. In July 2020, Hummel filed 
post-conviction motions. Four months later and before the trial court ruled on 

these motions, Hummel filed a motion to compel a ruling on those motions. In 

December 2020, Hummel filed this original action in the Court of Appeals, 

seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on his pending 

post-conviction motions.

In February 2021, before the Court of Appeals ruled on Hummel’s

pending writ petition, the trial court entered an order disposing of Hummel’s

post-conviction motions. Because the trial court’s ruling disposed of the 

matter in controversy, the Court of Appeals dismissed as moot Hummel’s

pending writ application. He now appeals that decision to this Court.

II. ANALYSIS

We agree with the Court of Appeals that Hummel’s writ request is moot. 

Before this Court reaches the merits of any issue raised, it must ask whether 

the issue is justiciable.1 One requirement of justiciability is that the issue 

must be live.2 Generally speaking, when an appeal is pending and an event 

occurs that makes the resolution of the issue on appeal meaningless, the 

1 Commonwealth Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs., Dep’t for Medicaid Servs. v. 

Sexton ex rel. Appalachian Reg’l Healthcare, Inc., 566 S.W.3d 185, 192 (Ky. 2018) (“All 

Kentucky courts have the constitutional duty to ascertain the issue of constitutional 

standing, acting on their own motion, to ensure that only justiciable causes proceed in 

court, because the issue of constitutional standing is not waivable.” (emphasis 

added)).

2 Benton v. Clay, 233 S.W. 1041, 1042 (Ky. 1921) (“A ‘moot case’ is one which 

seeks to get a judgment . . . upon some matter which, when rendered, for any reason, 

cannot have any practical legal effect upon a then existing controversy.” (citation 

omitted)).
appeal should be dismissed as moot.

3 That is the case here. Hummel’s

original action in the Court of Appeals aimed to force the trial court to rule on 

his post-conviction motions. And the trial court did rule on Hummel’s pending 

motions before the Court of Appeals could take up his writ request. So the 

issue before the Court of Appeals was resolved such that a ruling by that court 

would have no practical legal effect. The Court of Appeals ruled correctly, and 

we affirm their ruling.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ holding that Hummel’s

petition for a writ of mandamus is moot.

All sitting. All concur.

3 Louisville Transit Co. v. Dep't of Motor Transp., 286 S.W.2d 536, 538 (Ky. 

1956); see also Choate v. Koorsen Protective Servs., Inc., 929 S.W.2d 184, 184 (Ky. 

1996).