Court Opinion

ID: 9963839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 14:05:20.87514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:01.726741
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: APRIL 19, 2024; 10:00 A.M.
                             NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                    Commonwealth of Kentucky
                                Court of Appeals
                                   NO. 2023-CA-0510-MR

ROY R. DRAIN                                                        APPELLANT

                       APPEAL FROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT
v.                     HONORABLE LARRY ASHLOCK, JUDGE
                             ACTION NO. 17-CR-00644

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                              APPELLEE

                                          OPINION
                                         AFFIRMING

                                         ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: COMBS, GOODWINE, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

COMBS, JUDGE: Appellant, Roy Drain (Drain), pro se, appeals from the denial

of his CR1 60.02 motion. After our review, we affirm.

                On August 10, 2017, a Hardin County Grand Jury indicted Drain and

charged him with two counts of incest, one count of third-degree rape, and one

1
    Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
count of unlawful transaction with a minor. By supplemental indictment, the

Grand Jury charged Drain with one count of first-degree sodomy.

                On January 22, 2019, Drain filed a motion to enter a plea of guilty to

first-degree sodomy, and the remaining counts were dismissed. In accordance with

the Commonwealth’s recommendation, the trial court sentenced Drain to 15 years

to serve.

                On February 10, 2021, Drain filed a motion pursuant to RCr2 11.42 on

various grounds, which the trial court denied by Order entered on March 8, 2021.3

Drain did not appeal that decision.

                On December 22, 2022, Drain filed a motion for an evidentiary

hearing; by separate motion and supporting memorandum, he requested relief

pursuant to CR 60.02. Drain challenged the indictment, jurisdiction, the validity of

the search warrant, chain of custody, the evidence, and the actions of his lawyer.

Drain also filed a motion to amend his CR 60.02 motion.

2
    Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure.
3
  In that March 8, 2021, Order denying Drain’s RCr 11.42 motion, the trial court explained that
depending upon the specifics at trial about age, Drain was facing a total of 70 years if convicted
on all charges. Drain’s attorney negotiated a sentence of 15 years on the count of first-degree
sodomy with a dismissal of all other counts. The trial court found that regardless of any alleged
failure by defense counsel, Drain cannot show prejudice, noting that: “[t]he indisputable
evidence confirms Drain’s guilt for First-Degree Sodomy. He did not even receive the
maximum sentence for that one crime.”`

                                                -2-
             By Order entered on February 6, 2023, the trial court denied Drain’s

motion, concluding that Drain’s allegations were unsupported by the record and

that they fell “far short” of indicating that the result of the case was a miscarriage

of justice. Drain then appealed.

             We note our standard of review as follows:

                    We review the denial of a CR 60.02 motion for an
             abuse of discretion. The test for abuse of discretion is
             whether the trial court’s decision was arbitrary,
             unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal
             principles. Absent a flagrant miscarriage of justice, we
             will affirm the trial court.

Diaz v. Commonwealth, 479 S.W.3d 90, 92 (Ky. App. 2015) (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted).

             Drain’s brief is difficult to follow. We agree with the Commonwealth

that his claim regarding the search warrant is without merit. Burton v.

Commonwealth, 394 S.W.2d 933, 934 (Ky. 1965) (allegation of illegal search and

seizure wholly without merit in view of defendant’s guilty plea and waiver of jury

trial). We also agree that any claim regarding the voluntariness of Drain’s guilty

plea could (and should) have been adjudicated on direct appeal or on the prior RCr

11.42 motion. As our Supreme Court explained in Sanders v. Commonwealth, 339

S.W.3d 427 (Ky. 2011):

                    “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

                                          -3-
              complete. That structure is set out in the rules related to
              direct appeals, in RCr 11.42, and thereafter in CR
              60.02.” Gross v. Commonwealth, 648 S.W.2d 853, 856
              (Ky. 1983). The rule is not intended as merely an
              additional opportunity to raise claims which could and
              should have been raised in prior proceedings, but, rather,
              “is for relief that is not available by direct appeal and not
              available under RCr 11.42.” Id. “In order to be eligible
              for CR 60.02 relief, the movant must demonstrate why he
              is entitled to this special, extraordinary relief.” Barnett
              v. Commonwealth, 979 S.W.2d 98, 101 (Ky.1998)
              (emphasis added).

Id. at 437 (italics original).

              We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Drains’s CR 60.02 motion. Accordingly, we affirm.

              ALL CONCUR.

 BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                       BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

 Roy Roger Drain, pro se                    Russell Coleman
 Burgin, Kentucky                           Attorney General of Kentucky

                                            Courtney J. Hightower
                                            Assistant Attorney General
                                            Frankfort, Kentucky

                                           -4-