THOMAS (MITCHELL B) VS. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: AUGUST 22, 2008; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth Of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2007-CA-001467-MR
MITCHELL B. THOMAS
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM MASON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE ROBERT W. MCGINNIS, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 01-CI-00008
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CAPERTON AND STUMBO, JUDGES; BUCKINGHAM, SENIOR
JUDGE. 1
BUCKINGHAM, SENIOR JUDGE: Mitchell B. Thomas appeals from an order of
the Mason Circuit Court, entered on February 1, 2007, which denied his motion for
relief made pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42. We
affirm.
1
Senior Judge David C. Buckingham sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the Chief Justice
pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and KRS 21.580.
Thomas was convicted of three counts of first-degree trafficking in a
controlled substance (second or subsequent offense) and one count of trafficking in
a controlled substance within 1000 yards of a school. He was sentenced to serve
12 years on each of the three counts of first-degree trafficking, with two sentences
to run concurrently and one to run consecutively, and three years on the count of
trafficking in a controlled substance within 1000 yards of a school, to run
concurrently, for a total sentence of 24 years. His conviction was affirmed by the
Kentucky Supreme Court. See Thomas v. Commonwealth, 2004 WL 535929 (Ky.
March 18, 2004) (2002-SC-00552-MR).2 On August 9, 2006, Thomas filed a pro
se motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to RCr 11.42. The motion was denied,
and this appeal followed.
The gist of Thomas’s argument is that his sentences on the three
counts of first-degree trafficking were improperly enhanced due to two prior
convictions for drug offenses dating from 1974 and 1976. He contends that the
use of prior drug offenses to enhance sentences should be limited in scope and time
frame.
In Gross v. Commonwealth, 648 S.W.2d 853 (Ky.1983), the Kentucky
Supreme Court explained that the structure of post-conviction review is not
haphazard or overlapping. Id. at 856. It held that a criminal defendant must first
bring a direct appeal when available, then utilize RCr 11.42 by raising every error
of which “he is aware, or should be aware, during the period when this remedy is
2
Thomas states in his brief that he served approximately six years of the sentence and is now on
parole.
2
available to him.” Id. at 857. The sentence enhancement issue could have been
raised on direct appeal, and it may not therefore be raised in a post-conviction
motion pursuant to RCr 11.42. Moreover, Thomas himself has admitted, and the
record confirms, that his trial counsel objected to the introduction of these prior
offenses into evidence. These alleged errors were therefore fully preserved for
review on direct appeal.
Thomas further argues that the enhancement of his sentences
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment of the United
States Constitution and Section 17 of the Kentucky Constitution. His argument is
based on his statement that the convictions occurred years ago and involved only
small amounts of marijuana. Thomas did not raise this issue in his RCr 11.42
motion.
“The Court of Appeals is one of review and is not to be approached as
a second opportunity to be heard as a trial court. An issue not timely raised before
the circuit court cannot be considered as a new argument before this Court.”
Lawrence v. Risen, 598 S.W.2d 474, 476 (Ky. App. 1980). Furthermore, as with
his argument regarding the sentence enhancement, this constitutional argument
could have been raised in his direct appeal. For these reasons, it is precluded from
our consideration in this post-conviction proceeding.
Finally, we note that Thomas raised numerous arguments in his
original RCr 11.42 motion that he failed to mention in his appellate brief. “The
[f]ailure of appellant to discuss the alleged errors in its brief is the same as if no
3
brief had been filed in support of its charges.” R. E. Gaddie, Inc. v. Price, 528
S.W.2d 708, 710 (Ky. 1975). Alleged errors set forth in a motion but then not
presented on appeal are deemed to be waived. See Smith v. Commonwealth, 567
S.W.2d 304, 306 (Ky. 1978).
The order of the Mason Circuit Court is therefore affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Mitchell B. Thomas, pro se
Maysville, Kentucky
Jack Conway
Attorney General of Kentucky
Susan Roncarti Lenz
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.