JIMMY DALE BOWLIN v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: JULY 26, 2002; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
2001-CA-001734-MR
JIMMY DALE BOWLIN
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM JESSAMINE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE J. C. DAUGHERTY, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 00-CR-00013
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
BARBER, HUDDLESTON, AND MILLER, JUDGES.
MILLER, JUDGE:
Jimmy Dale Bowlin brings this pro se appeal from
an order of the Jesssamine Circuit Court entered July 26, 2001
denying him relief under Ky. R. Civ. P. (CR) 60.02.
We affirm.
On January 28, 2000, Bowlin was indicted by the
Jessamine County Grand Jury on an assortment of offenses.
trial was held on October 24, 2000.
A jury
Bowlin was convicted of
three counts of terroristic threatening in the third degree,
Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 508.080, two counts of wanton
endangerment in the first degree, KRS 508.060, possession of
marijuana, KRS 218A.1422, possession of drug paraphernalia, KRS
218A.500, and cruelty to animals in the second degree, KRS
525.130.
Bowlin was duly sentenced to prison.
On July 26, 2001,
he filed a motion pursuant to CR 60.02(e) & (f).
The sole claim
was that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his
trial.
On July 26, 2001, the Jessamine Circuit Court summarily
denied the motion.
The court reasoned that the CR 60.02 motion
was not a proper procedure for the relief sought.
This appeal
ensues.
Our standard of review is whether the trial court
abused its discretion.
S.W.3d 83 (2000).
See White v. Commonwealth, Ky. App., 32
The Commonwealth points out that the claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel should have been raised by a
Ky. R. Crim. P. (RCr) 11.42 proceeding.
taken.
We think this is well-
See Barnett v. Commonwealth, Ky., 979 S.W.2d 98 (1998);
Gross v. Commonwealth, Ky., 648 S.W.2d 853 (1983); McQueen v.
Commonwealth, Ky., 948 S.W.2d 415 (1997).
Notwithstanding that CR 60.02 was an improper avenue
for challenging the effectiveness of trial counsel, the circuit
court observed:
Defendant's sole argument is that trial
counsel was ineffective due to a failure to
investigate the indictment. A review of the
record shows that on July 18, 2000, trial
counsel filed a Motion to Redact Statements,
requesting the Court to redact certain
portions of Defendant's taped interview with
the police. That pleading, along with the
fact that counsel was well-prepared for
trial, clearly shows that counsel had
investigated the indictment and all relevant
aspects of the case and that she practiced
the case proficiently.
-2-
Having considered the record herein, we perceive no
error.
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Jessamine
Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Jimmy Dale Bowlin, Pro Se
Burgin, Kentucky
Albert B. Chandler III
Attorney General of Kentucky
Frankfort, Kentucky
Brian T. Judy
Assistant 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.
