Opinion
2022-CA-0406-MR
02-23-2024
JOSEPH D. COOK APPELLANT v. DANIEL AKERS, WARDEN, AND KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS APPELLEES
Briefs for Appellant: Joseph D. Cook, Pro Se West Liberty, Kentucky Brief for Appellee: G. Edward Henry, II Lexington, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from Lee Circuit Court Honorable Michael Dean, Judge Action No. 20-CI-00100
Briefs for Appellant: Joseph D. Cook, Pro Se West Liberty, Kentucky
Brief for Appellee: G. Edward Henry, II Lexington, Kentucky
Before: Combs, McNeill, and Taylor, Judges.
OPINION
TAYLOR, JUDGE
Joseph D. Cook, pro se, brings this appeal from a February 14, 2022, order of the Lee Circuit Court dismissing Cook's petition for declaration of rights. For the reasons stated, we dismiss.
On January 2, 2020, Cook, who was an inmate at the Lee Adjustment Center in Beattyville, Kentucky, was charged with a disciplinary infraction. More particularly, it was alleged that Cook was guilty of Charge 7-1, "Physical action against an employee or non-inmate." Disciplinary Report Form, Part I at 1. A prison disciplinary hearing was conducted on January 11, 2020, resulting in the adjustment chairman rendering the following findings:
Adjustment chairman has assessed the charge of 7-1 and find the charge appropriate. The adjustment chairman imposes the penalty of 2 yrs non restorable good time loss. 1 yr of which is suspended for 180 days. Based the decision on the fact the inmate was in the wrong wing and as he was exiting you can see he slings the door back striking the officer which showed intent.
January 11, 2020, Disciplinary Report Form, Part II at I. Cook then appealed the adjustment chairman's decision to the warden. On February 26, 2020, Warden Daniel Akers affirmed the decision of the adjustment chairman.
On October 1, 2020, Cook filed a Petition for Declaration of Rights in the Lee Circuit Court seeking restoration of his good-time credit. By order entered February 14, 2022, the circuit court dismissed Cook's petition with prejudice. This appeal follows.
In May of 2023, Cook was released from incarceration on parole by the Kentucky Department of Corrections. Therefore, we must first address whether an actual case or controversy exists.
Kentucky Rules of Evidence 201(b)(2) permits judicial notice to be taken of a fact that is "not subject to reasonable dispute" because it is ''[c]apable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." We have held that "[a] court may properly take judicial notice of public records and government documents, including public records and government documents available from reliable sources on the internet." Polley v. Allen, 132 S.W.3d 223, 226 (Ky. App. 2004). Based on our review of the court docket of the Breckinridge Circuit Court, Action No. 14-CR-00089. and other public records, which we take judicial notice thereof, Joseph D. Cook has been released on parole.
It is well-settled that "[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." Morgan v. Getter, 441 S.W.3d 94, 98-99 (Ky. 2014) (quoting Benton v. Clay, 233 S.W. 1041, 1042 (Ky. 1921)). Furthermore, "[t]he general rule is, and has long been, that where pending an appeal, an event occurs which makes a determination of the question unnecessary or which would render the judgment that might be pronounced ineffectual, the appeal should be dismissed." Id. at 99 (citations omitted). This result is due to the long stated rule that courts have "no jurisdiction to decide issues which do not derive from an actual case or controversy." Commonwealth v. Hughes, 873 S.W.2d 828, 829 (Ky. 1994) (citations omitted).
Cook was released from custody in May of 2023, and thus, is no longer incarcerated. Cook's release from custody renders any judgment that might be pronounced on loss of good-time credit ineffectual; thus, the appeal must be dismissed. See Morgan, 441 S.W.3d at 98-99. Simply stated, the issue on appeal is now moot.
Now, therefore, be it ORDERED that Appeal No. 2022-CA-0406-MR is DISMISSED as being moot.
ALL CONCUR.