RAYMOND C. SILLER v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: September 10, 1999; 10:00 a.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
1997-CA-002787-MR
RAYMOND C. SILLER
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE MARY C. NOBLE, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 94-CR-148
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
GARDNER, HUDDLESTON AND JOHNSON, JUDGES.
JOHNSON, JUDGE: Raymond C. Siller (Siller) appeals pro se from an
order entered by the Fayette Circuit Court on October 13, 1997,
which denied his post-judgment request for production of
documents.
Finding no error, we affirm.
Siller pled guilty but mentally ill on October 17,
1994, to charges of Unlawful Imprisonment in the First Degree
(Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 509.020) and Sodomy in the First
Degree (KRS 510.070), and on February 6, 1995, was sentenced to
prison for a term of fourteen years.
On September 29, 1997,
Siller filed in the Fayette Circuit Court a pleading entitled
“Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents”.
This pleading
named Ray Larson, the Commonwealth’s Attorney for Fayette County,
as the defendant, and requested that the production of documents
by the Commonwealth “include any and all evidence presented to
the Grand Jury pursuant to [Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure]
RCr 5.16. . . .”
On October 13, 1997, in its order denying the
motion, the circuit court noted that Siller “appears to believe
he is proceeding in a civil matter and has filed a Motion for
Production of Documents Post Conviction.”
The circuit court then
stated that “the Motion is improper and is hereby DENIED.”
This
appeal followed.
Siller argues on appeal that he “was denied his
constitutional right to inspect the evidence presented to the
grand jury.”
While Siller cited RCr 7.24 to support his motion
before the circuit court, in his brief he refers to the “Open
Records Act” found at KRS 61.870 to 61.884.
However, since
Siller did not present his argument concerning the Open Records
Act to the circuit court, this issue has not been preserved for
appellate review.
See Heucker v. Clifton, Ky., 500 S.W.2d 398
(1973).
As to RCr 7.24, it is clear that this rule permits a
defendant to obtain discovery of certain items only prior to
judgment. Sections 8 and 9 of RCr 7.24 state as follows:
-2-
(8)
If subsequent to compliance with an
order issued pursuant to this rule, and
prior to or during trial, a party
discovers additional material previously
requested which is subject to discovery
or inspection under the rule, he shall
promptly notify the other party or his
attorney, or the court, of the existence
thereof.
(9)
If at any time during the course of the
proceedings it is brought to the
attention of the court that a party has
failed to comply with this rule or an
order issued pursuant thereto, the court
may direct such party to permit the
discovery or inspection of materials not
previously disclosed, grant a
continuance, or prohibit the party from
introducing in evidence the material not
disclosed, or it may enter such other
order as may be just under the
circumstances.
(emphasis added).
Obviously, RCr 7.24 pertains to pre-judgment discovery and offers
Siller no support for his post-judgment request.
As our Supreme Court has explained, “[t]he question
before us is not whether his purpose is meritorious, or his
motives genuine, but whether there is a legal basis for his
claim.
That basis must be either statutory or constitutional.”
Gilliam v. Commonwealth, Ky., 652 S.W.2d 856, 858 (1983).
This
Court has found no statutory or constitutional basis for Siller’s
position and he has provided none.
Accordingly, the order of the Fayette Circuit Court is
affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
-3-
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Raymond C. Siller, pro se
LaGrange, KY
Hon. A.B. Chandler, III
Attorney General
Hon. Dana M. Todd
Asst. Attorney General
Frankfort, KY
-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.