Court Opinion

ID: 9941300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-16 15:14:26.384029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:31.124437
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: FEBRUARY 9, 2024; 10:00 A.M.
                            NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                    Commonwealth of Kentucky
                                Court of Appeals
                                   NO. 2023-CA-0277-MR

DAVID WILLIAMS                                                        APPELLANT

                 APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
v.            HONORABLE CHARLES L. CUNNINGHAM, JR., JUDGE
                ACTION NOS. 18-CR-000417 AND 19-CR-001517

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                                APPELLEE

                                          OPINION
                                         AFFIRMING

                                         ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: COMBS, GOODWINE, AND LAMBERT, JUDGES.

COMBS, JUDGE: Appellant, David Williams (Williams), pro se, appeals from an

Order of the Jefferson Circuit Court denying his CR1 60.02 motion. After our

review, we affirm.

                On September 19, 2019, the Jefferson Circuit Court entered a

combined Judgment sentencing Williams to an aggregate of ten years, probated for

1
    Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
five years. On November 17, 2020, the Commonwealth filed a motion to revoke

his probation. However, that motion was denied, and Williams was ordered to

enroll in drug court. On December 7, 2021, the Commonwealth again moved to

revoke Williams’s probation, and that motion was granted by Order entered on

September 29, 2022. Williams did not file a direct appeal from the Order revoking

his probation.

               Instead, acting pro se, he subsequently filed a motion “pursuant to the

provisions of CR 60.02(a) through (f)” and any other applicable authority to

vacate, set aside, or modify the judgment and sentence on several grounds.

               In its response, the Commonwealth argued that the CR 60.02 motion

was improper because the challenge to the revocation of probation should have

brought by direct appeal, citing Commonwealth v. Dulin, 427 S.W.3d 170 (Ky.

2014). Williams raised several other arguments: that double jeopardy applied, that

his plea was involuntary, that the court somehow changed his sentence, and that

Probation and Parole failed to comply with statutory requirements. The

Commonwealth argued that all of these other contentions lacked merit or

specificity.

               On December 27, 2022, the circuit court entered an Order denying

Williams’s motion as follows:

               The Court has reviewed his several pleadings filed in
               support of his motion as well as the Commonwealth’s

                                          -2-
            cogent and concise response. For the reasons set out in
            that Response and consistent with Commonwealth v.
            Andrews, 448 S.W.3d 733 (Ky. 2014), the Court is
            unable to grant the motion.

                  WHEREFORE, the motion is DENIED. The
            motion to proceed in forma pauperis and for the
            appointment of counsel are denied as moot.

(Uppercase original.)

            Williams subsequently filed additional motions for relief, which the

circuit court denied by Order entered on February 23, 2023.

            Williams, pro se, now appeals. Another panel of this Court

determined that Williams sufficiently responded to a show cause order as to why

the case should not be dismissed for failure to timely file a notice of appeal,

allowing this appeal to proceed as timely. The case is now before us on the

merits.

            We have reviewed the record and find that the issues raised by

Williams are wholly without merit. As did the trial court, we find the

Commonwealth’s argument to be sound.

            The trial court properly followed the Andrews criteria in determining

that revocation of probation was warranted under the circumstances. For the

reasons set forth in the Commonwealth’s brief and consistent with Gross v.

Commonwealth, 648 S.W.2d 853 (Ky. 1983), we affirm.

                                         -3-
           ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:        BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

David W. Williams, pro se    Daniel Cameron
West Liberty, Kentucky       Attorney General of Kentucky

                             Ken W. Riggs
                             Assistant Attorney General
                             Frankfort, Kentucky

                            -4-