SELBY (DONALD) VS. HALL (JOHNATHAN G.)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: DECEMBER 17, 2010; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2010-CA-000798-MR
DONALD SELBY
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE THOMAS D. WINGATE, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 09-CI-02112
JOHNATHAN G. HALL
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CLAYTON, COMBS, AND WINE, JUDGES.
COMBS, JUDGE: Donald Selby appeals from an order of the Franklin Circuit
Court dismissing his petition for declaration of rights. After our examination of
the record and pertinent law, we affirm.
Selby was originally sentenced in December 2000. In February 2004,
he was released on parole. That parole was transferred to the state of Indiana
under the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision. Kentucky Revised
Statute[s] (KRS) 439.561. See also 4 U.S.C. § 112 (1965). The record contains an
offender violation report issued by the Interstate Commission for Adult Offender
Supervision dated April 16, 2008, which indicates that in February and March of
that year, Selby was arrested for misdemeanors, failed to report the arrests, and
failed a drug test. Subsequently, on May 6, 2008, a parole violation warrant was
issued by the Kentucky Parole Board because Selby had been convicted in Indiana
of a felony; i.e., operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The record indicates
that Selby then pled guilty to committing a felony while on parole, and the Parole
Board revoked his parole on August 1, 2008.1
Selby filed a petition for his declaration of rights in the Franklin
Circuit Court, arguing that his rights had been violated by the Parole Board. The
circuit court dismissed his petition. This appeal follows.
Selby now argues that under House Bill (HB) 406 from 2008, he
should receive credit for the time he spent on parole. We disagree. HB 406 was
the budget bill in 2008. The pertinent section provided as follows:
the period of time spent on parole shall count as a part of
the prisoner’s remaining unexpired sentence when it is
used to determine a parolee’s eligibility for a final
discharge from parole . . . when a parolee is returned as a
parole violator for a violation other than a new felony
conviction.[2]
(Emphasis added).
1
The record of the hearing was apparently sealed and is not part of the record on appeal.
2
The General Assembly later adopted this language when it amended KRS 439.344 in 2009.
-2-
Selby acknowledges that he was returned to prison based on his felony
conviction. However, he argues that his rights were violated because the parole
violation warrant that resulted in the revocation was the second warrant issued.
Selby does not present any authority for this argument, and we have been unable to
find any. The record contains only one warrant. When evidence is missing from
the record, we are bound to “assume that the record supports the decision of the
trial court.” Commonwealth v. Thompson, 697 S.W.2d 143, 145 (Ky. 1985).
Therefore, we affirm the trial court on this issue.
Selby also argues that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to alter,
amend, or vacate the judgment under Kentucky Civil Rule[s] of Procedure (CR)
59.05. This rule requires that the motion be filed within ten days of judgment. The
final judgment was entered on March 22, 2010, and Selby’s motion was filed on
April 5, 2010 – 13 days after final entry (when considering weekends). The trial
court denied the motion because it was untimely.
Selby contends that the trial court should have granted him leniency since he
is handicapped by the prison mail system. However, our Supreme Court has
explicitly held that “CR 59 motions served 13 days after entry of judgment are not
timely. . . . The imperative nature of CR 59.05 is exemplified by its specific
exclusion from the enlargement provision of CR 6.02.” Arnett v. Kennard, 580
S.W.2d 495, 496 (Ky. 1979). Thus, the trial court did not err in its denial of
Selby’s motion.
We affirm the Franklin Circuit Court.
-3-
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Donald Selby, pro se
Central City, Kentucky
J. Todd Henning
Justice and Public Safety Cabinet
Frankfort, Kentucky
-4-
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.