Opinion
2020-CA-1619-MR
01-07-2022
PHARO WILSON APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Pharo Wilson, pro se West Liberty, Kentucky. BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Daniel Cameron Attorney General of Kentucky, Matthew R. Krygiel Assistant Attorney General Frankfort, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE PATRICIA M. SUMME, JUDGE ACTION NO. 12-CR-00765
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Pharo Wilson, pro se West Liberty, Kentucky.
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Daniel Cameron Attorney General of Kentucky, Matthew R. Krygiel Assistant Attorney General Frankfort, Kentucky
BEFORE: COMBS, DIXON, AND MAZE, JUDGES.
OPINION
DIXON, JUDGE.
Pharo Wilson, pro se, appeals the order of the Kenton Circuit Court denying his motion for relief pursuant to CR 60.02, entered on November 25, 2020. Following a careful review of the briefs, record, and law, we affirm.
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2014, Wilson was convicted of three counts of criminal attempt to commit murder, being a persistent felony offender in the second degree, and possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. The underlying facts concerning his convictions were summarized in his direct appeal in Wilson v. Commonwealth, No. 2014-SC-000392-MR, 2015 WL 5655524 (Ky. Sep. 24, 2015), and his appeal concerning denial of his RCr 11.42 motion alleging he received ineffective assistance of counsel in Wilson v. Commonwealth, No. 2017-CA-001452-MR, 2019 WL 168687, at *1 (Ky. App. Jan. 11, 2019). Rather than recount all the salacious details herein, we choose to adopt those statements of facts and include only a brief recitation of the facts pertinent to this appeal.
Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure.
On January 11, 2019, Wilson moved the trial court to correct his sentence pursuant to CR 60.02. On June 6, 2019, the trial court denied his motion. Wilson belatedly appealed from that order.
On September 2, 2020, Wilson again moved the trial court for relief pursuant to CR 60.02. After the matter was fully briefed, the trial court denied his motion, and this appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
Wilson's attempt to obtain relief in this fashion is not allowed by the rules governing post-conviction relief. In Gross v. Commonwealth, 648 S.W.2d 853, 856 (Ky. 1983), the Court stated "[t]he 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 complete. That structure is set out in the rules related to direct appeals, in RCr 11.42, and thereafter in CR 60.02." As Wilson has utilized post-conviction attacks by direct appeal, via RCr 11.42 and CR 60.02, his attempt to obtain relief by filing a successive CR 60.02 motion is improper. Wilson is not entitled to relief because the grounds asserted in his motion are grounds that were, or could have been, raised in his direct appeal, through his RCr 11.42, motion or his prior CR 60.02 motion. Thus, he is precluded from raising them in this manner. See Gross, 648 S.W.2d at 856.
Wilson's brief only challenges the language of the trial court's final judgment, entered on July 2, 2014. Any discussion by Wilson concerning the Kentucky Department of Corrections in his brief was purely informational and to provide context for the basis of his current appeal.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, and for the foregoing reasons, the order entered by the Kenton Circuit Court is AFFIRMED.
ALL CONCUR.