MARK BRADLEY v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
October 19, 2001; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
2001-CA-000307-MR
MARK BRADLEY
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM OHIO CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE RONNIE C. DORTCH, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 98-CR-00020
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
BUCKINGHAM, COMBS, and DYCHE, Judges.
COMBS, JUDGE:
Mark Bradley appeals from an order of the Ohio
Circuit Court denying his motion for relief pursuant to Kentucky
Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42.
We conclude that the
trial court properly denied the motion; thus, we affirm.
Following a jury trial, Bradley was convicted of
multiple counts of trafficking in a controlled substance within
1000 yards of a school.
In accord with the jury's
recommendation, he was sentenced to serve eighteen years in
prison.
No direct appeal was filed.
In September 2000, more than two years after his
sentencing, Bradley filed a motion to vacate the judgment and
sentence pursuant to RCr 11.42.
On January 12, 2001, the trial
court entered an order denying the motion.
This appeal followed.
Bradley argues that his convictions violate the Double
Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
However, since this issue is one that could have
(and should have) been raised on direct appeal, Bradley is
foreclosed from seeking relief pursuant to RCr 11.42 on this
ground alone.
As the Kentucky Supreme Court held in Sanborn v.
Commonwealth, Ky., 975 S.W.2d 905, 909 (1998), a motion filed
pursuant to RCr 11.42 "is limited to issues that were not and
could not be raised on direct appeal."
The trial court did not
err in denying relief.
Based upon the foregoing, the order of the Ohio Circuit
Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT PRO SE:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Mark Bradley
Blackburn Correctional Complex
Lexington, KY
Albert B. Chandler III
Attorney General of Kentucky
Courtney J. Hightower
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, KY
-2-
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.
