WALTER L. THOMAS v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: January 15, 1999; 10:00 a.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED C ommonwealth O f K entucky C ourt O f A ppeals NO. 1996-CA-002268-MR WALTER L. THOMAS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE GEOFFREY P. MORRIS, JUDGE ACTION NO. 91-CR-001421 v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** ** BEFORE: BUCKINGHAM, DYCHE, and MILLER, JUDGES. MILLER, JUDGE: Walter L. Thomas (Thomas) brings this pro se appeal from a July 30, 1996 Order of the Jefferson Circuit Court. We affirm. In August, 1991, Thomas, along with others, was indicted on numerous felony charges. On January 3, 1992 he pleaded guilty to certain of the charges. one of the offenses on January 22, 1992. He was sentenced on Sentencing on the remaining charges was postponed until after the trial of his co- defendants. On May 6, 1993 he was finally sentenced to 20 years in prison. Thomas filed a “Motion for Modification of Sentence” on April 4, 1994.1 Said motion was denied by order of the Jefferson Circuit Court on April 13, 1994. On July 8, 1996, Thomas filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. court denied same on August 2, 1996. The circuit That order was appealed and affirmed by this Court on October 9, 1996. Discretionary review was denied by the Supreme Court on December 11, 1996. On or about July 11, 1996, Thomas filed a second post-conviction motion entitled “Motion to Vacate Sentence and/or to Set Aside Sentence Pursuant to RCr [Ky. R. Crim. P.] 11.42 Rule.” on July 30, 1996. Same was denied This appeal followed. Thomas sets forth numerous grounds for relief. It is not necessary to enumerate same, however, as this appeal will be dealt with summarily. Upon a thorough review of the record, we do not believe Thomas raises any issues in the current proceedings which were not or could not have been presented in either of his previous post-conviction motions. Consequently, he is precluded from raising these issues now. Case v. Commonwealth, Ky., 467 S.W.2d 367 (1971); Odewahn v. Commonwealth, Ky., 407 S.W.2d 137 (1966). We, thus, perceive no error in the order from which this appeal was taken. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Order of the Jefferson Circuit Court. 1 The circuit court characterized this post-conviction motion as a Ky. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion. Having reviewed said motion, we are of the opinion that it is more accurately labeled as a Ky. R. Crim. P. 11.42 motion, and we shall treat it as such. -2- ALL CONCUR. BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Walter L. Thomas, Pro Se West Liberty, KY A. B. Chandler III Attorney General and Amy F. Howard Assistant Attorney General Frankfort, KY -3-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.