Opinion
2023-SC-0080-MR
01-18-2024
GARY R. WOOLBRIGHT APPELLANT v. HONORABLE JOHN T. ALEXANDER, JUDGE, BARREN CIRCUIT COURT APPELLEE AND COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Gary R. Woolbright, pro se APPELLEE: Hon. John T. Alexander Barren Circuit Court COUNSEL FOR REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY: Russell M. Coleman Attorney General of Kentucky Christopher Henry Assistant Attorney General
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS NO. 2022-CA-1121 BARREN CIRCUIT COURT NO. 01-CR-0414
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Gary R. Woolbright, pro se APPELLEE: Hon. John T. Alexander Barren Circuit Court
COUNSEL FOR REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY: Russell M. Coleman Attorney General of Kentucky Christopher Henry Assistant Attorney General
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AFFIRMING
This is an appeal from the Court of Appeals' decision denying a writ of prohibition sought by Gary Woolbright after the Barren Circuit Court denied his CR 60.02 motion without conducting a new factual review of his allegations. The trial court ruled that Woolbright's CR 60.02 motion raised issues that had previously been raised on direct appeal or collateral attack and was successive, which is prohibited by the Civil Rules. The trial court declared its ruling was a final and appealable order. Instead of appealing, Woolbright sought a writ of prohibition. The Court of Appeals declined to issue the writ, noting that Woolbright had an adequate remedy by appeal.
That Woolbright has previously litigated a CR 60.02 motion is not in doubt. Woolbright v. Commonwealth, No. 2018-CA-001503-MR, 2020 WL 114592 (Ky. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2020).
A writ of prohibition may issue upon showing "that the lower court is acting or is about to act erroneously, although within its jurisdiction, and there exists no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise and great injustice and irreparable injury will result if the petition is not granted." Hoskins v. Maricle, 150 S.W.3d 1, 10 (Ky. 2004). "[T]he lack of an adequate remedy by appeal is the one requirement that is set in stone and unavoidable." Gilbert v. McDonald-Burkman, 320 S.W.3d 79, 85 (Ky. 2010). "Our case law recognizes that an order denying a motion for a new trial under CR 60.02 is final and appealable." Violett v. Grise, 664 S.W.3d 481, 484 (Ky. 2022) (citing Hackney v. Hackney, 327 S.W.2d 570, 571-72 (Ky. 1959); Hardin v. Waddell, 316 S.W.2d 367 (Ky. 1958)).
"That Appellant has an adequate remedy by appeal is alone sufficient grounds to deny him the writ he seeks." Gilbert, 320 S.W.3d at 85. The Court of Appeals' decision was not an abuse of discretion and is affirmed.
All sitting. All concur.