Court Opinion

ID: 9374852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 15:05:39.232783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:53.559776
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: FEBRUARY 17, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                         Court of Appeals

                            NO. 2021-CA-0979-MR

LEONEL MIRANDA MARTINEZ                                            APPELLANT

                 APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT
v.                 HONORABLE LISA P. JONES, JUDGE
                       ACTION NO. 06-CR-00601

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                               APPELLEE

                                   OPINION
                                  AFFIRMING

                                 ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: DIXON, MCNEILL, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

TAYLOR, JUDGE: Leonel Miranda Martinez, pro se, brings this appeal from an

August 2, 2021, order of the Daviess Circuit Court denying a successive Kentucky

Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02 motion to vacate his sentence of

imprisonment. We affirm.
                                    Background

            In 2008, appellant was convicted of one count of murder and two

counts of robbery in the first degree; he was sentenced to twenty-four years’

imprisonment. Appellant pursued a direct appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court;

his conviction was affirmed in an Opinion rendered August 27, 2009 (Martinez v.

Commonwealth, No. 2008-SC-0082-MR, 2009 WL 2706958 (August 27, 2009)).

            Appellant subsequently filed a motion pursuant to CR 60.02 to vacate

his sentence of imprisonment. By order entered August 16, 2010, the trial court

denied the motion, and an appeal was not pursued. Appellant then filed a motion

pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42 to vacate his

sentence of imprisonment. The trial court denied the RCr 11.42 motion, and

appellant pursued an appeal to this Court (Appeal No. 2011-CA-0505-MR). By

Opinion rendered February 10, 2012, this Court affirmed the denial of appellant’s

RCr 11.42 motion.

            Appellant, thereafter, filed a second CR 60.02 motion, which the trial

court denied by order entered May 24, 2017. Appellant pursued an appeal to this

Court (Appeal No. 2017-CA-1510-MR), and this Court affirmed the ruling.

During the pendency of Appeal No. 2017-CA-1510-MR, appellant filed a third CR

60.02 motion. By order entered February 6, 2018, the trial court denied the CR

60.02 motion. Appellant filed an appeal (Appeal No. 2018-CA-0366-MR) to this

                                        -2-
Court from the February 6, 2018, order; however, the appeal was dismissed on the

Court’s own motion by order entered August 22, 2018.

             Finally, appellant, pro se, filed a fourth CR 60.02 motion. Therein,

Martinez alleged his conviction should be vacated for the following reasons:

             (1) Recent Federal authority in the Fourth and Fifth
             Circuits as well as in Indiana demonstrates there was a
             Brady violation and that [appellant] should be able to
             attack his conviction despite procedural barriers; (2)
             Recent authority from Mississippi shows the jury
             instructions in this case were defective; (3) the Hon.
             Bruce Kuegal, who was a witness in this case was
             allowed to act an “an undercover prosecutor” during the
             trial; (4) [appellant]’s trial attorney, the Hon. George
             Triplett, improperly advised [appellant] to reject a plea
             deal where [appellant] would serve a one-year sentence
             and instead [appellant] was convicted and sentenced to
             twenty-four years; (5) Authority from Nebraska shows
             [appellant]’s two counts of complicity to commit first[-
             ]degree robbery violate the double jeopardy clause and
             that the evidence in this case was insufficient to sustain
             convictions on any of the charges; and (6) a particular
             video (which [appellant] has previously claimed will
             demonstrate a detective lied in an arrest warrant) is
             currently in the possession of his trial counsel.

August 2, 2021, Order Denying [CR] 60.02 Motion at 2-3 (footnoted omitted).

This appeal follows.

                                Standard of Review

             As a general rule, this Court customarily reviews the denial of a CR

60.02 motion for an abuse of discretion. Foley v. Commonwealth, 425 S.W.3d

880, 886 (Ky. 2014). And, it is well-established that our courts will not consider

                                         -3-
successive post-conviction motions upon the same grounds of relief or upon

grounds that could have been asserted in previous motions. Id. at 884.

                                     Analysis

            Appellant argues on appeal that the trial court erred by denying his

CR 60.02 motion to vacate his sentence of imprisonment. For the reasons that

follow, we disagree. In Kentucky, the law is clear that a successive CR 60.02

motion is impermissible upon any ground that could have been raised in a prior CR

60.02 proceeding. Stoker v. Commonwealth, 289 S.W.3d 592, 597 (Ky. App.

2009). Simply stated, “CR 60.02 does not permit successive post-judgment

motions[.]” Foley, 425 S.W.3d at 884.

            In this case, appellant has now filed five post-conviction motions –

four motions pursuant to CR 60.02 and one pursuant to RCr 11.42. The circuit

court thoroughly reviewed all of Martinez’s claims and denied the same.

However, for purposes of this appeal, the present CR 60.02 motion is a successive

motion; and based on our review of the record, the grounds alleged therein could

have been raised in appellant’s prior CR 60.02 motions or his prior RCr 11.42

motion. Being an impermissible successive CR 60.02 motion, we conclude that

the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying same. See Foley, 425 S.W.3d

at 884.

                                        -4-
            For the foregoing reasons, the August 2, 2021, Order Denying [CR]

60.02 Motion entered by the Daviess Circuit Court is affirmed.

            ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                     BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Leonel Miranda Martinez, Pro Se          Daniel Cameron
Eddyville, Kentucky                      Attorney General of Kentucky

                                         Ken W. Riggs
                                         Assistant Attorney General
                                         Frankfort, Kentucky

                                       -5-