DONALD RAY BRIDGES v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 20, 2002; 2:00 p.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED C ommonwealth O f K entucky C ourt O f A ppeals NO. 2000-CA-001252-MR DONALD RAY BRIDGES APPELLANT APPEAL FROM BOURBON CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE ROBERT OVERSTREET, JUDGE ACTION NO. 93-CR-00086 v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING *** *** *** BEFORE: BEFORE BUCKINGHAM, GUIDUGLI AND KNOPF, JUDGES. BUCKINGHAM, JUDGE: Donald Ray Bridges has appealed to this Court from the order entered by the Bourbon Circuit Court on April 11, 2000, classifying him as a moderate risk sex offender. Prior to the briefing of this case, this appeal was abated pending resolution by the Kentucky Supreme Court of cases challenging the constitutionality of the amendments to the sex offender assessment statutes. On February 21, 2002, the Kentucky Supreme Court rendered its opinion in the case of Hyatt v. Commonwealth, 72 S.W.3d 566 (2002), upholding the constitutional validity of the statutes. When the Supreme Court opinion became final, this Court entered an order directing the appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be summarily affirmed under the authority of Hyatt, supra. No response was filed to that show cause order. In a response filed on October 5, 2000, to an earlier show cause order of this Court, counsel for the appellant indicated that Hyatt was anticipated to resolve all of the issues in this appeal. The failure to respond to our most recent show cause order of July 10, 2002, indicates that the issues have indeed been resolved. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the order of April 11, 2000, classifying Donald Ray Bridges as a moderate risk sex offender be, and it is hereby, AFFIRMED. ALL CONCUR. ENTERED: September 20, 2002 /s/ David C. Buckingham JUDGE, COURT OF APPEALS COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLEE: James Paul Brannon Paris, Kentucky Albert B. Chandler Frankfort, Kentucky -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.