JAMES JACKSON v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
DECEMBER 21, 2001; 10:00 a.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
2001-CA-000671-MR
JAMES JACKSON
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE JOHN R. ADAMS, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 96-CR-00167
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
COMBS, EMBERTON, and HUDDLESTON, Judges.
COMBS, JUDGE:
James Jackson appeals an order of the Fayette
Circuit Court denying his motion for CR 60.02 relief.
We affirm.
Following his indictment in February 1996, Jackson
agreed to plead guilty to the charge of first-degree burglary and
to being a persistent felony offender in the first degree.
In
exchange, he received a ten-year sentence on the burglary
conviction, enhanced to twenty-years' imprisonment as a
persistent felony offender.
In June 1999, Jackson filed his first motion for
modification of sentence pursuant to CR 60.02.
Alleging various
grounds, he argued that he was entitled to a lighter sentence.
The motion was denied, and no appeal was taken.
Jackson filed
his second motion for relief in February 2001.
In this motion,
Jackson argued that he was entitled to a lighter sentence because
he "merely entered the dwelling with the intent to commit a
crime."
His actions, he insisted, amounted to no more than
second-degree burglary.1
The motion was again denied.
The record in this case does not support the
appellant's position.
The record indicates that Jackson
unlawfully entered the victim's home with the intent to commit a
crime and that he was armed with a deadly weapon.
The trial
court did not abuse its discretion by denying the relief sought.
The order of the trial court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT PRO SE:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
James W. Jackson
LaGrange, KY
Albert B. Chandler III
Attorney General of Kentucky
Gregory C. Fuchs
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, KY
1
In his statement of the facts, Jackson intimates that he
was not afforded effective assistance of counsel. However, he
does not elaborate on this point in the argument portion of his
brief. Nonetheless, a claim for relief on this ground would have
to be addressed by way of a motion filed pursuant to RCr 11.42.
Gross v. Commonwealth, Ky., 648 S.W.2d 853 (1983); RCr 11.42.
-2-
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.
