KENDALL PARNELL v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
November 21, 1997; 10:00 a.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
NO. 96-CA-2436-MR
KENDALL PARNELL
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM LARUE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE LARRY D. RAIKES, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 94-CR-001
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION AND ORDER
DISMISSING
***
BEFORE:
***
***
***
COMBS, EMBERTON, and MILLER, Judges.
MILLER, JUDGE:
Kendall Parnell (appellant) brings this pro se
appeal from an August 21, 1996 order of the Larue Circuit Court.
We dismiss this appeal.
On December 27, 1993, appellant was arrested for rape
in the third degree (Ky. Rev. Stat. (KRS) 510.060).
On January
11, 1994, a $60,000.00 property bond was posted and appellant was
released from custody.
He pled guilty to third-degree rape on
September 7, 1995, and was sentenced to 2-1/2 years' imprisonment.
The appellant did not receive credit towards his sentence
for the time he spent in custody prior to sentencing as required
by KRS 532.120(3).
On August 19, 1996, appellant filed a motion
to amend the final judgment to reflect custody credit of sixteen
days.
Said motion was overruled.
This appeal followed.
Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal on August 26,
1996, and his pro se brief on September 20, 1996.
On November
21, 1996, the Larue Circuit Court entered an order giving appellant sixteen days' credit towards his sentence.
The Common-
wealth, appellee, filed its response brief on February 24, 1997
and admitted appellant's entitlement thereto.
Appellant's sole argument is that, pursuant to KRS
532.120(3), a credit of sixteen days should be applied toward the
2-1/2 year sentence his is currently serving.
Court that the relief sought has been granted.
It appears to this
Perforce we
dismiss this appeal.
ALL CONCUR.
/s/
John D. Miller
JUDGE, COURT OF APPEALS
ENTERED:
November 21, 1997
-2-
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Kendall Parnell Pro Se
LaGrange, KY
A. B. Chandler III
Attorney General
Cindy Goldhill Schwartz
Ass't 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.
