RENDERED: MAY 27, 2022; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2021-CA-1365-MR

JEFFREY EUGENE JACKSON, JR. APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT

v. HONORABLE LUCY A. VANMETER, JUDGE

ACTION NO. 13-CR-00614

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; 

KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; 

AND KENTUCKY PAROLE BOARD APPELLEES

OPINION

AFFIRMING

**   **  **

BEFORE: ACREE, CETRULO, AND L. THOMPSON, JUDGES.

THOMPSON, L., JUDGE: Jeffrey Eugene Jackson, Jr. (“Appellant”), pro se, 

appeals from an order of the Fayette Circuit Court denying his motion for a 

declaration of rights and injunctive relief. He argues that the circuit court 

committed reversible error and violated his constitutional rights in failing to rule 
-2-

that he has earned so much sentencing credit that he will reach his projected 

completion date before his parole eligibility date. The circuit court denied the 

motion upon concluding that Appellant’s claim is purely speculative and is not a 

present, actual controversy subject to the jurisdiction of the court. After careful 

review, we find no error and affirm the order on appeal.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 11, 2014, Appellant entered a plea of guilty in Fayette 

Circuit Court to one count each of manslaughter in the second degree, possession 

of firearm by a convicted felon, tampering with physical evidence, and being a 

first-degree persistent felony offender (“PFO”).1 He was sentenced to a term of 20 

years in prison, and per the PFO statute was required to serve at least 10 years 

before parole eligibility.2 According to the record, Appellant’s parole eligibility 

date is April 2, 2023, and his good time release date is November 3, 2022.

In 2021, Appellant instituted an administrative review of his 

sentencing and release date. He was advised by both institutional staff at the 

Roederer Correctional Complex in La Grange, Kentucky, and on administrative 

appeal to an Offender Information Specialist, that he was not eligible for 

1 Kentucky Revised Statutes (“KRS”) 507.040, KRS 527.040, KRS 524.100, and KRS 

532.080(3).

2 KRS 532.080(7).
-3-

Mandatory Reentry Supervision (“MRS”) until he reached his parole eligibility 

date. 

Not satisfied with the outcome of the administrative review, 

Appellant, pro se, filed a motion in his underlying criminal case in Fayette Circuit 

Court seeking a declaration of rights and injunctive relief. Specifically, Appellant 

sought a declaration of his MRS release date. On October 22, 2021, the circuit 

court entered an order denying the relief sought. In support of the order, the court 

cited Foley v Commonwealth, 306 S.W.3d 28, 31 (Ky. 2010), for the proposition 

that a trial court may not adjudicate speculative rights or duties which may arise in 

the future and do not raise a present, actual controversy. The court noted that the 

time for review of Appellant’s MRS release eligibility had not arrived, and that the 

Kentucky Department of Corrections (“DOC”) was not required to submit to the 

Kentucky Parole Board (“the Board”) a list of eligible MRS candidates until one 

month prior to MRS eligibility. The court also noted that the DOC and the Board 

were not parties to the criminal action and could not be made parties to the present 

action by way of the motion for a declaration of rights. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard of review for a trial court’s dismissal of a declaration of 

rights is de novo. Hopkins v. Smith, 592 S.W.3d 319, 322 (Ky. App. 2019). 
-4-

ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS

Appellant argued below that he has earned so much sentencing credit, 

including “good time” and other credit, that he will reach his projected completion 

date before his parole eligibility date. He asserted that the DOC informed him that 

it interprets KRS 439.3406 as prohibiting the release of an inmate who has not 

reached his parole eligibility date. This interpretation, he contends, was erroneous. 

He now argues that the circuit court improperly failed to correct this error by way 

of a declaration of rights and injunctive relief.

KRS 439.3406(1) requires the Board to order MRS “six (6) months 

prior to the projected completion date of an inmate’s sentence for an inmate who 

has not been granted discretionary parole.” This provision, however, is subject to a 

number of exceptions. One such exception provides that, “[t]he provisions of 

subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to an inmate who . . . is not eligible 

for parole by statute[.]” KRS 439.3406(2)(a) (emphasis added). 

The Fayette Circuit Court, however, did not address the corpus of 

Appellant’s argument, instead finding that because Appellant was not yet eligible 

for MRS or parole, his claim was purely speculative. Foley, supra, provides in 

relevant part that, 

[t]he court will not decide speculative rights or duties 

which may or may not arise in the future, but only rights 

and duties about which there is a present actual 

controversy presented by adversary parties, and in which 
-5-

a binding judgment concluding the controversy may be 

entered.

Foley, 306 S.W.3d at 31. 

At the time of the filing of Appellant’s motion, Appellant was not yet 

eligible for MRS review or parole. As such, there was no “present actual 

controversy” per Foley, and the circuit court properly so found. Further, the DOC 

and the Board were not subject to the jurisdiction of the Fayette Circuit Court as 

they were not parties to the underlying criminal action. As noted by the Fayette 

Circuit Court, Appellant styled his motion as if it were a civil matter calling it a 

“Motion for Declaration of Rights and Injunctive Relief,” and he included the 

DOC and the Board in the caption as real parties in interest. The DOC and the 

Board, however, were not parties to the underlying criminal proceeding, and there 

is no provision in the civil or criminal rules for bringing third parties under the 

jurisdiction of the circuit court merely by adding their names to the caption of a 

motion. 

CONCLUSION

Appellant’s motion failed to raise a present, actual controversy for 

adjudication, and the purported real parties in interest – the DOC and the Board –

were not subject to the jurisdiction of the circuit court. The Fayette Circuit Court 

properly so found. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Fayette Circuit Court 

denying Appellant’s motion for a declaration of rights and injunctive relief.
-6-

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:

Jeffrey E. Jackson, Jr., pro se

La Grange, Kentucky

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE

COMMONWEALTH OF 

KENTUCKY:

Daniel Cameron

Attorney General of Kentucky

Robert Baldridge

Assistant Attorney General

Frankfort, Kentucky