HARDEN (NATHANIEL) VS. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 25, 2009; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2008-CA-001260-MR NATHANIEL HARDEN v. APPELLANT APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE THOMAS D. WINGATE, JUDGE ACTION NO. 08-CI-00796 COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** ** BEFORE: FORMTEXT LAMBERT AND TAYLOR, JUDGES; HENRY, SENIOR JUDGE. TAYLOR, JUDGE: Nathaniel Harden brings this appeal from a June 11, 2008, order of the Franklin Circuit Court dismissing his petition for declaration of rights. We affirm. In 1976, Harden was convicted in the Fayette Circuit Court upon the offenses of murder, first-degree robbery, and theft by unlawful taking. Harden was sentenced to life in prison. After serving part of his life sentence, the Kentucky Parole Board granted Harden parole; however, Harden’s parole was revoked in 1994. Harden’s parole was then reinstated in February of 1996. Harden then violated the conditions of his parole prior to his actual release and by decision rendered May 24, 1996, the Parole Board “voided” Harden’s parole and directed Harden to “serve out” the remainder of his life sentence. As a result, Harden became ineligible for future parole consideration. Harden subsequently filed a petition for declaration of rights (Action No. 04-CI-01729) in the Franklin Circuit Court. Harden argued that the Parole Board’s May 24, 1996, decision voiding his parole was improper as violating sundry constitutional rights. By orders entered September 26, 2005, and June 2, 2006, the circuit court determined the petition to be meritless and dismissed it. On May 5, 2008, Harden filed a second petition for declaration of rights (Action No. 08-CI-00796) in the Franklin Circuit Court. Harden again argued that the Parole Board’s May 24, 1996, decision was improper as violative of sundry constitutional rights. By order entered June 11, 2008, the circuit court again dismissed Harden’s petition. In so doing, the circuit court reasoned: Because this Court has already decided the issues presently before it, [Harden’s] case must be dismissed based on res judicata. Accordingly, [Commonwealth’s] Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and this case is hereby DISMISSED. This appeal follows. -2- The doctrine of res judicata operates as a bar to relitigation of matters judicially determined. Yeoman v. Com., Health Policy Bd., 983 S.W.2d 459 (Ky. 1998). Res judicata has two components: (1) claim preclusion and (2) issue preclusion. Resolution of this appeal focuses upon the later component – issue preclusion. Issue preclusion bars subsequent litigation when the following four elements are present: First, the issue in the second case must be the same as the issue in the first case. Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982). Second, the issue must have been actually litigated. Id. Third, even if an issue was actually litigated in a prior action, issue preclusion will not bar subsequent litigation unless the issue was actually decided in that action. Id. Fourth, for issue preclusion to operate as a bar, the decision on the issue in the prior action must have been necessary to the court's judgment. Id. Yeoman, 983 S.W.2d at 465. And, res judicata will, of course, only attach to a judgment entered by a court vested with subject matter jurisdiction. Vega v. Kosair Charities Comm., Inc., 832 S.W.2d 895 (Ky. App. 1992). In Franklin Circuit Court Action No. 04-CI-01729, Harden filed a petition for declaration of rights and asserted that the Parole Board’s May 24, 1996, decision voiding his parole was erroneous. He specifically argued that the May 24, 1996, decision violated his constitutional due process rights and the constitutional guarantee against ex post facto laws. The circuit court reached the merits of Harden’s argument and determined that no such constitutional violations -3- occurred. Accordingly, the circuit court dismissed Harden’s petition for declaration of rights and no appeal was taken therefrom. In Franklin Circuit Court Action No. 08-CI-00796, Harden filed a second petition for declaration of rights and again argued that the May 24, 1996, decision voiding his parole was erroneous as violative of his due process rights and violative of the constitutional guarantee against ex post facto laws. This time, the circuit court determined that Harden’s petition for declaration of rights was barred by the doctrine of res judicata and dismissed the petition. It is undisputed that the issues presented in Harden’s first petition for declaration of rights (Action No. 04-CI-01729) and in Harden’s second petition for declaration of rights (Action No. 08-CI-00796) were identical – that the Parole Board’s May 24, 1996, decision was unconstitutional as violative of the constitutional guarantee of due process and of the constitutional guarantee against ex post facto laws. Moreover, it is clear that these constitutional issues were squarely before and decided by the circuit court in Action No. 04-CI-01729. And, a review of the circuit court’s order in Action No. 04-CI-01729 reveals that the petition was dismissed based upon the circuit court’s resolution of said constitutional issues. Considering the elements outlined in Yeoman, we hold that the doctrine of issue preclusion bars relitigation of the issues of whether the May 24, 1996, decision of the Parole Board was violative of Harden’s due process rights and constitutional guarantee against ex post facto laws. Accordingly, we conclude -4- that the circuit court properly dismissed Harden’s petition for declaration of rights pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Franklin Circuit Court is affirmed. ALL CONCUR. BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Nathaniel Hardin, Pro Se Central City, Kentucky Angela T. Dunham Kentucky Justice & Public Safety Cabinet Frankfort, Kentucky -5-

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.