RICHARD KODE PURCELL v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: MAY 4, 2001; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
1999-CA-003124-MR
RICHARD KODE PURCELL
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM MCCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE R. JEFFREY HINES, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 94-CR-00274
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
JOHNSON, KNOPF, AND MILLER, JUDGES.
MILLER, JUDGE:
Richard Kode Purcell brings this pro se appeal
from a December 7, 1999, order of the McCracken Circuit Court.
We affirm.
In 1994, appellant suffered two indictments in the
McCracken Circuit Court, being indictment number 94-CR-0202 and
number 94-CR-0274.
theft by deception.
Both indictments involved multiple counts of
They were substantial charges, each of which
could culminate in a long prison sentence.
It appears that at
the time of the foregoing indictments, appellant was serving time
in the penitentiary.
In 1995, the two aforesaid indictments came
on for disposition.
Appellant entered a plea agreement whereby
he would receive a total of five years under each indictment to
run concurrently.
Evidently, there was a misunderstanding, and
for a period of time, it was thought that the concurrent
sentences also would run concurrently with the sentence appellant
was then serving in the penitentiary.
It is abundantly clear,
however, that this misunderstanding was corrected at the time of
the imposition of sentence.
It was understood by the parties
that the sentences imposed on indictment 94-CR-0202 and 94-CR0274 would run concurrently with each other, but consecutive to
the sentence appellant was then serving.
The court made this
eminently clear before accepting appellant's plea to the 1994
indictments.
Since the foregoing occurrence, appellant has
repeatedly sought to have his sentence “modified.”
He first
brought an appeal to this Court in 1995-CA-001257-MR arguing that
his plea was involuntary.
This argument was rejected and the
appeal affirmed.
In 1999, appellant again challenged the validity of his
sentence by filing a motion to correct an alleged “clerical
error” in the circuit court's order.
appeal was taken.
This motion was denied.
No
On November 12, 1999, appellant filed the
instant proceeding designed to correct his sentence pursuant to
Ky. R. Civ. P. 60.02.
Denial of this motion precipitated this
appeal.
Throughout the history of this matter, appellant has
sought to have his consolidated sentences on the 1994 indictments
-2-
run concurrently with a sentence he was then serving in the
penitentiary.
The instant proceeding is but a successive attempt
to do so.
It is firmly established that successive attempts are
not permitted.
Matters already reviewed, or which could have
been reviewed, cannot form a sufficient basis for subsequent
motions.
See Vunetich v. Commonwealth, Ky., 847 S.W.2d 51
(1990), Shepherd v. Commonwealth, Ky., 477 S.W.2d 798 (1972),
Hampton v. Commonwealth, Ky., 454 S.W.2d 672 (1970).
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the McCracken
Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Richard Kode Purcell, Pro Se
Eddyville, Kentucky
Albert B. Chandler III
Attorney General of Kentucky
Frankfort, Kentucky
Vickie L. Wise
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
-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.
