WALTERS (JAMES) VS. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: JULY 11, 2008; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2006-CA-002560-MR JAMES WALTERS v. APPELLANT APPEAL FROM MCCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE R. JEFFREY HINES, JUDGE ACTION NO. 97-CR-00284 COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** ** BEFORE: CLAYTON, NICKELL, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES. TAYLOR, JUDGE: James Walters bring this pro se appeal from an October 16, 2006, order of the McCracken Circuit Court denying his Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02 motion. We affirm. In October 1998, appellant pleaded guilty to murder and first-degree robbery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years. Thereafter, appellant collaterally attacked his conviction by filing sundry motions, including two CR 60.02 motions. All were denied. Thereafter, in September 2006, appellant filed the instant CR 60.02 motion seeking to vacate his sentence of imprisonment. Appellant alleged that the police improperly questioned him after invoking the right to counsel, thus mandating relief under CR 60.02. By order entered October 16, 2006, the circuit court denied the CR 60.02 motion. This appeal follows. Appellant contends that the circuit court erred by denying his CR 60.02 motion. Specifically, appellant maintains that the police improperly questioned him after he invoked his right to counsel, thus mandating relief under CR 60.02. We disagree. CR 60.02 is an extraordinary remedy and only available to correct a substantial miscarriage of justice. Gross v. Com., 648 S.W.2d 853 (Ky. 1983); Wilson v. Com., 403 S.W.2d 710 (Ky. 1966). And, CR 60.02 is not a substitute for an appeal; only those issues that could not have been addressed in other proceedings are proper for review in a CR 60.02 motion. McQueen v. Com., 948 S.W.2d 415 (Ky. 1997). Appellant’s ground for CR 60.02 relief is that the police improperly continued to question him after he invoked the right to counsel. This is simply not a proper ground for relief under CR 60.02. Rather, a direct appeal would have been the proper avenue to correct such alleged error. Moreover, CR 60.02 is not available to correct alleged errors of law committed by the circuit court. See City -2- of Covington v. Sanitation Dist. No. 1, 459 S.W.2d 85 (Ky. 1970). The circuit court previously denied appellant’s motion to suppress his statements to police wherein he also claimed to have invoked his right to counsel. In the CR 60.02 motion, appellant again claimed the police continued to question him after he invoked the right to counsel, thus requiring CR 60.02 relief. Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court properly denied appellant’s CR 60.02 motion. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the McCracken Circuit Court is affirmed. ALL CONCUR. BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: James Walters, Pro Se West Liberty, Kentucky Gregory D. Stumbo Attorney General of Kentucky Todd D. Ferguson Assistant Attorney General of Kentucky 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.