ANTHONY SADLER v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
JUNE 30, 2006; 2:00 P.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth Of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2005-CA-000604-MR
ANTHONY SADLER
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM MERCER CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE DARREN W. PECKLER, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 99-CR-00048
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION AND ORDER
DISMISSING APPEAL
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
TAYLOR AND VANMETER, JUDGES; EMBERTON, SENIOR JUDGE.1
VANMETER, JUDGE:
Anthony Sadler appeals from the Mercer Circuit
Court’s order denying his motion seeking RCr 11.42 relief.
For
the following reasons, we must dismiss this appeal.
Sadler was indicted on October 25, 1999, of two counts
of murder and two counts of attempted murder.
In exchange for
Sadler’s guilty plea, the Commonwealth agreed to recommend a
life sentence without the possibility of parole for twenty-five
1
Senior Judge Thomas D. Emberton sitting as Special Judge by assignment of
the Chief Justice pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution
and KRS 21.580.
years for each of the two murder counts, and a twenty-year
sentence for each of the two attempted murder counts.
On
September 20, 2001, the circuit court accepted Sadler’s guilty
plea and entered a judgment sentencing him as recommended, with
the sentences to run concurrently.
On August 26, 2004, Sadler filed a motion to vacate,
set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to RCr 11.42.
The
circuit court denied this motion by an order entered January 11,
2005.
On January 25, Sadler filed a motion seeking relief
pursuant to CR 59.052 and CR 52.02.3
The circuit court denied
this motion by an order entered February 1.
On February 16,
Sadler filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and tendered
with it a notice of appeal.
The circuit court granted Sadler’s
motion to proceed in forma pauperis by an order entered February
22, and Sadler’s notice of appeal was filed on March 16.
Pursuant to RCr 12.04(3), Sadler had thirty days in
which to file an appeal after the circuit court entered its
January 11, 2005, order denying his RCr 11.42 motion.
Thus,
Sadler’s notice of appeal was not timely when it was tendered
2
CR 59.05 provides as follows: “A motion to alter or amend a judgment, or to
vacate a judgment and enter a new one, shall be served not later than 10 days
after entry of the final judgment.”
3
CR 52.02 provides as follows: “Not later than 10 days after entry of
judgment the court of its own initiative, or on the motion of a party made
not later than 10 days after entry of judgment, may amend its findings or
make additional findings and may amend the judgment accordingly. The motion
may be made with a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59.”
-2-
with his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on February 16,
2005.4
Moreover, Sadler’s appeal is not saved by the fact
that he filed CR 59.05 and CR 52.02 motions.
As stated in Mills
v. Commonwealth,5 “the filing of a CR 59.05 [motion] after a
trial court has ruled on an RCr 11.42 motion does not suspend
the running of the time for an appeal.”
Further, consistent
with the Mills rationale that “only those appellate civil rules
listed in RCr 12.02 apply to criminal appellate procedures[,]”6
neither does the filing of a CR 52.02 motion suspend the running
of the time for a criminal appeal.
Finally, even if it could be
said that timely motions pursuant to CR 59.05 and CR 52.02
tolled the running of time in which to file a criminal appeal,
Sadler’s appeal would not be saved since his motion seeking
relief pursuant to these rules was also untimely filed.7
Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the merits of
Sadler’s appeal.8
4
See CR 5.05(4).
5
170 S.W.3d 310, 323 (Ky. 2005).
6
Id. at 322.
7
See CR 52.02, CR 59.05.
8
See Demoss v. Commonwealth, 765 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Ky.App. 1989) (an “appellate
court lacks jurisdiction unless the notice is seasonably filed”); see also CR
73.02(2) (“[t]he failure of a party to file timely a notice of appeal . . .
shall result in a dismissal or denial”).
-3-
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that this
appeal be DISMISSED.
ALL CONCUR.
/s/ Laurance B. VanMeter___
JUDGE, COURT OF APPEALS
ENTERED: June 30, 2006__
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Anthony Sadler, pro se
Burgin, Kentucky
Gregory D. Stumbo
Attorney General of Kentucky
James Havey
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
-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.