JAMES D. MURRAY v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
November 14, 1997; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
No. 97-CA-000278-MR
JAMES D. MURRAY
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM HART CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE LARRY D. RAIKES, JUDGE
INDICTMENT NO. 94-CR-000069
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION AND ORDER
* * * * * * * *
BEFORE:
BUCKINGHAM, GUDGEL and HUDDLESTON, JUDGES.
HUDDLESTON, JUDGE.
This is an appeal from an order of Hart Circuit
Court denying Murray's Ky. R. Crim. Proc. (RCr) 11.42 motion to
vacate his sentence on the ground that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel.
Murray was charged with four counts of first-degree
trafficking in a controlled substance. Upon the advice of counsel,
he entered a plea of guilty to the first two counts of the
indictment and the other two counts were dismissed.
Murray was
sentenced to three years in prison on each of the two counts and
the sentences were run concurrently.
Murray's
incarcerated
Kentucky.
at
RCr
the
11.42
Kentucky
motion
State
was
filed
Reformatory
while
at
he
was
LaGrange,
On August 1, 1997, subsequent to the filing of Murray's
brief and the Commonwealth's brief on appeal, Murray, having served
out his sentence, was discharged from custody.
RCr 11.42 relief is available to "[a] prisoner in custody
under sentence or a defendant on probation, parole or conditional
discharge who claims a right to be released on the ground that the
sentence is subject to collateral attack . . . ."
Since
Murray
has
been
released
from
custody
RCr 11.42(1).
and
is
not
on
probation, parole or conditional discharge, the issues raised in
his RCr 11.42 motion are moot.
Therefore, it is ORDERED that
Murray's appeal be and it is hereby dismissed.
ALL CONCUR.
ENTERED: November 14, 1997
/s/ Joseph R. Huddleston
JUDGE, COURT OF APPEALS
-2-
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
James D. Murray - Pro Se
Blackburn Correctional Complex
Lexington, Kentucky
A. B. Chandler III
Attorney General
William L. Daniel II
Asst. 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.
