RICHARDSON (LLOYD CHRISTOPHER) VS. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: JUNE 20, 2008; 2:00 P.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2006-CA-002530-MR LLOYD CHRISTOPHER RICHARDSON v. APPELLANT APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE GARY PAYNE, JUDGE ACTION NO. 99-CR-00006 COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** ** BEFORE: STUMBO AND TAYLOR, JUDGES; HENRY,1 SENIOR JUDGE. HENRY, SENIOR JUDGE: Lloyd Christopher Richardson appeals from an order of the Fayette Circuit Court denying his Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02 motion for relief from that court’s judgment and order of conviction entered March 12, 1999, whereby he was convicted of one count each of first-degree assault and first-degree unlawful imprisonment. Richardson was sentenced to Senior Judge Michael L. Henry, sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the Chief Justice pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and KRS 21.580. 1 twenty years’ imprisonment for the crimes, which involved restraining his pregnant girlfriend and her young son in her apartment over a period of several hours, beating her when she regained consciousness. Richardson’s conviction was affirmed by the Kentucky Supreme Court on April 20, 2000. In this CR 60.02 motion Richardson alleges that the trial court erred by permitting the jury to consider incorrect information about his minimum and maximum parole eligibility during the sentencing phase of his trial. Because this is Richardson’s third successive post-conviction motion, we decline to reach the merits and affirm. In Gross v. Commonwealth, 648 S.W.2d 853 (Ky. 1983), the Supreme Court of Kentucky addressed Kentucky’s post-conviction procedure this way: The structure provided in Kentucky for attacking the final judgment of a trial court in a criminal case is not haphazard and overlapping, but is organized and complete. That structure is set out in the rules related to direct appeals, in RCr 11.42, and thereafter in CR 60.02. CR 60.02 is not intended merely as an additional opportunity to raise Boykin defenses. It is for relief that is not available by direct appeal and not available under RCr 11.42. The movant must demonstrate why he is entitled to this special, extraordinary relief. Id. at 856. The matters raised in the present motion are “issues that could reasonably have been presented” in either his direct appeal or in one of his two previous post-conviction motions. Further review is therefore foreclosed. Id. at 857. -2- ALL CONCUR. BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Lloyd Richardson, Pro Se LaGrange, Kentucky Gregory D. Stumbo Attorney General of Kentucky Perry T. Ryan 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.