LINVILLE JACKSON LAMB v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
SEPTEMBER 21, 2001; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
2000-CA-002197-MR
LINVILLE JACKSON LAMB
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM CLARK CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE WILLIAM T. JENNINGS, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 98-CR-00049
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
DYCHE, GUIDUGLI AND KNOPF, JUDGES.
GUIDUGLI, JUDGE.
Linville Jackson Lamb ("Lamb") appeals from a
denial of his petition for writ of prohibition relating to a
denial of good time credits.
We affirm.
In September, 1998, Lamb was indicted by the Clark
County Grand Jury on four counts of first-degree sexual abuse.
Lamb entered a plea of guilty, and was sentenced to a total of
four years in prison.
Final judgment and sentence was rendered
on December 30, 1998.
On June 22, 2000, Lamb filed a pro se petition for a
writ of prohibition.
He alleged therein that the Department of
Corrections was improperly withholding good time credits and
instead requiring him to serve 85% of his sentence as a sexual
offender.
As a basis for the petition, he maintained that the
sexual offender law went into effect after the date of his
conviction.
The petition was summarily denied via an order
rendered September 7, 2000, and this appeal followed.
Lamb now argues, through counsel, that the trial court
improperly denied his petition for relief.
He notes that KRS
197.045 makes good time credit contingent upon the convictee's
completion of a sex offender treatment program, and concedes that
the application of KRS 197.045 does not violate constitutional
provisions against ex post facto law.1
See Lozier v.
Commonwealth, Ky. App., 32 S.W.3d 511 (2000).
Instead, Lamb
argues that he was " . . . denied good time credits and
improperly subject to an extended prison term only because of his
status as a sexual offender, not because of a failure to complete
a treatment program."
As such, he argues that a summary denial
of his writ was improper.
We may easily dispose of Lamb's appeal.
Setting aside
the Commonwealth argument that Lamb now improperly characterizes
his petition for writ of prohibition as a petition for a
declaratory judgment, we believe there is no distinction between
the Lozier-style ex post facto argument noted above, and the
argument which Lamb now asserts.
The dispositive point is that
under KRS 197.045, good time credits earned by Lamb are not
forfeited but rather are delayed until after completion of a
1
Lamb has not completed a sexual offender program, despite
the fact that completion of such a program was a term of his
sentence.
-2-
treatment program.
Lamb has not completed such a program, and
accordingly he may not receive any accumulated good time credits.
Lozier is controlling and, as such, the circuit court acted
properly in dismissing Lamb's petition.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the
Clark Circuit Court.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Irvin J. Halbleib
Louisville, KY
A. B. Chandler, III
Attorney General
Dennis W. Shepherd
Assistant 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.
