Opinion
NO. 2014-CA-000093-MR
01-09-2015
NATHAN MEACHAM APPELLANT v. CLARK TAYLOR APPELLEE
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Nathan C. Meacham LaGrange, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEES: Angela Turner Dunham Frankfort, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED APPEAL FROM OLDHAM CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE KAREN A. CONRAD, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 13-CI-00541
OPINION AND ORDER
DISMISSING APPEAL
BEFORE: CAPERTON, COMBS, AND VANMETER, JUDGES. COMBS, JUDGE: On April 14, 2014, appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. Appellant filed a response opposing the motion.
Judge Caperton concurred in this opinion prior to Judge Debra Lambert being sworn in on January 5, 2015, as Judge of Division 1, Third Appellate District. Release of this opinion was delayed by administrative handling.
Having considered the motion and response, the Court ORDERS the motion be, and it is hereby, GRANTED.
Meacham is an inmate of the Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR). In March 2013, he received a disciplinary report charging sexual assault. Following a hearing on April 23, 2013, Meacham was found guilty of inappropriate sexual behavior. He was penalized by a forty-five day assignment to disciplinary segregation and forfeiture of sixty days of good-time credit. Both penalties were suspended for 180 days.
During the 180-day probationary period, Meacham filed a petition for declaration of rights in Oldham Circuit Court. Clark Taylor, warden of KSR, was the named defendant. The court dismissed the petition on November 13, 2013, due to Meacham's failure to state a claim. Meacham appealed, and Taylor filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.
The motion to dismiss is based upon the expiration of Meacham's sentence. The suspended sentence meant that if he committed no additional infractions during 180 days, he would not have to stay in segregation and would not lose good-time credit. Meacham fulfilled the 180-day period without incurring any disciplinary violations in October 2013. Therefore, his petition for declaration of rights was moot when the trial court dismissed it.
An appellate court must dismiss an appeal if "an event occurs which . . . renders any judgment that might be pronounced ineffectual for any purpose." Brown v. Baumer, 301 Ky. 315, 191 S.W.2d 235, 238 (1946).
In a similar case, the predecessor of our Supreme Court held as follows:
Since appellant has already satisfied the sentence of the court, we could make no order on this appeal which would affect her status. We cannot remit the jail sentence already served, and even if we should decide the sentence should not have been imposed, the opinion could not afford appellant any effectual relief in this case.Dillingham v. Commonwealth, 249 S.W.2d 827, 828 (Ky. 1952). Because Meacham has not suffered loss of good-time credit and does not face time in disciplinary segregation, we cannot grant any relief.
We note that Meacham argues that suspension of visitation privileges violated his rights. However, the record reflects that suspension of visitation was actually imposed upon his common-law wife. She had committed the offense for which the sanction was imposed. Therefore, Meacham does not have standing to argue this issue.
The appeal is hereby DISMISSED as MOOT.
ALL CONCUR. ENTERED: January 9, 2015
/s/_________
Judge, Court of Appeals
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Nathan C. Meacham
LaGrange, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEES: Angela Turner Dunham
Frankfort, Kentucky