WILLIAM B. WALKER V. JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSION, ET AL

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. " PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PR OCED URE PR OMUL GATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28 (4) (c), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE CITED OR USED AS A UTHORITYIN ANY OTHER CASE INANY CO UR T OF THIS STA TE. RENDERED : AUGUST 25, 2005 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED ,sixpromr (gaurf of 2005-SC-0161-MR WILLIAM B . WALKER V. DATE 9-15~V'5 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS 2004-CA-002468 WARREN CIRCUIT COURT NOS . 97-CR-0242 & 97-CR-268 JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSION APPELLEES AND COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY REAL PARTY IN INTEREST MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING This appeal is from an original action for a writ of mandamus filed in the Court of Appeals . The Court of Appeals granted the motion of the Judicial Conduct Commission to dismiss the action. This appeal follows. Walker, pro se, was convicted in December 1998, for charges of unlawful transaction with a minor in the Warren Circuit Court, ultimately receiving a 180-year sentence. He states that the trial judge entered an order correcting the judgment and order of commitment February 1999 . In April 2001, he claims to have filed a complaint against the trial judge with the Judicial Conduct Commission alleging violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct . His brief alleges that later in April, he received a letter from the executive secretary of the commission acknowledging receipt of the complaint . However, he claims that he never received communication from the commission regarding resolution of the complaint . In December 2004, he filed an original action in the Court of Appeals petitioning for a writ of mandamus . Walker raises the following three issues : whether this Court has the ability to issue a writ of mandamus to the Judicial Conduct Commission; whether a four-year delay by the Judicial Conduct Commission to render a decision on his complaint filed against the original trial judge in his case denied him due process of law and equal protection of the law; and, whether the filing and existence of the complaint is evidence sufficient to support a finding of violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct . We find no merit in his arguments . The question of whether this Court may issue a writ of mandamus to the Judicial Conduct Commission is not properly before this Court . The underlying writ was filed in the Court of Appeals. See generally, Russell County, Kentucky Hosp. Dist. Health Facilities Corp. v. Ephraim McDowell Health, Inc ., 152 S .W .3d 230 (Ky. 2004). This action is an appeal from a decision in the Court of Appeals regarding that writ . CR 76 .34(7). Thus, this Court's review is limited as to whether the Court of Appeals erred in disposing of the writ below. The Court of Appeals properly determined that it was unable to issue a writ to an authority handling a matter over which it does not have appellate jurisdiction by matter of right. SCR 1 .030(3); CR 76.38(1). Accordingly, we find no error in the decision . The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed . All concur. COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS : William B . Walker, Pro Se Kentucky State Reformatory #135945 3001 West Highway 146 LaGrange, KY 40032 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST : Gregory D. Stumbo Attorney General Room 118 Capitol Bldg . Frankfort, KY 40601 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSION : George F . Rabe 167 West Main Street Suite 1004 Lexington, KY 40507-1708 James D . Lawson P.O . Box 21868 Lexington, KY 40522-1868

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.