Jeffery Allen Morris v. Commonwealth of Kentucky ( 2021 )

RENDERED: MAY 14, 2021; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2020-CA-1195-MR
JEFFERY ALLEN MORRIS APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM PULASKI CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE JERRY J. COX, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 02-CR-00095-001
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: JONES, MAZE, AND L. THOMPSON, JUDGES.
JONES, JUDGE: Acting without the assistance of counsel, the Appellant, Jeffery
Allen Morris appeals the Pulaski Circuit Court’s June 22, 2020 order denying him
relief from his criminal conviction and related sentence. We affirm.
Morris pleaded guilty to complicity to commit the murder of Pulaski
County Sheriff Sam Catron. In exchange for his plea, Morris was sentenced to life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years. A judgment
of conviction on his guilty plea was entered on or about September 15, 2003.
Morris is currently incarcerated at the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex
(“EKCC”).
On June 15, 2020, Morris filed a motion requesting the circuit court to
“to relieve him of the remainder of his sentence pursuant to CR[1] 60.02(f)/CR
60.03, and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.” Therein, Morris argued that the circuit court should provide him
relief from his sentence because the COVID-19 pandemic endangered his life as
well as the lives of all prisoners incarcerated in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
He specifically asserted that the conditions at EKCC made it more likely he would
contract COVID-19 because of overcrowding, double bunking of prisoners, and
poor ventilation. Morris filed his motion in his criminal action. He did not bring a
separate civil suit against EKCC’s warden as is typical in condition of confinement
cases.
The circuit court denied Morris’s motion prior to the
Commonwealth’s time for a response. The circuit court’s order provides:
This matter comes before the Court on Movant Jefferey
[sic] Allen Morris’s Motion to Modify Sentence Pursuant
to CR 60.02(f), CR 60.03, and the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. The
Court finds that there are no extraordinary circumstances
justifying relief under CR 60.02(f), Morris has not
1
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
-2-
initiated an independent action as required by CR 60.03,
and that Morris’s sentence does not run afoul of the
United States Constitution. For these reasons, Morris’s
Motion is hereby DENIED.
Having reviewed the record, we discern no abuse of discretion by the
circuit court. CR 60.02 is designed to relieve a litigant from a judgment where
there has been “some significant defect in the trial proceedings or evidence at
trial[.]” Wine v. Commonwealth, 699 S.W.2d 752, 754 (Ky. App. 1985) (citing
Wilson v. Commonwealth, 403 S.W.2d 710, 712 (Ky. 1966)). “The hardships cited
by the appellant have no relation to the trial proceedings or any additional
undiscovered evidence not presented at trial[.]” Id. Simply put, the COVID-19
pandemic, an event that began just shy of two decades after Morris’s judgment was
entered, and has nothing whatsoever to do with his conviction, is not an
extraordinary circumstance that entitles him to relief from his judgment of
conviction. Ramsey v. Commonwealth, 453 S.W.3d 738, 739 (Ky. App. 2014)
(“We are not insensitive to Ramsey’s unfortunate circumstances [medical issues],
but rather simply hold that the trial court correctly found that CR 60.02 is not the
appropriate means for any potential relief to which he may be entitled.”).
CR 60.03 provides: “Rule 60.02 shall not limit the power of any court
to entertain an independent action to relieve a person from a judgment, order or
proceeding on appropriate equitable grounds. Relief shall not be granted in an
independent action if the ground of relief sought has been denied in a proceeding
-3-
by motion under Rule 60.02, or would be barred because not brought in time under
the provisions of that rule.” Relief under CR 60.03 is not available because Morris
did not file a separate civil action. And, even if he had done so, release in this
instance is governed by probation and parole. It would be inappropriate for a court
to circumvent the executive branch by ordering early release pursuant to CR 60.03
based solely on the COVID-19 pandemic.
Finally, to the extent that Morris alleges a violation of his Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights based on the conditions of his confinement, he must
bring a separate civil action against the EKCC’s warden. Williams v.
Commonwealth, Nos. 2019-CA-0964-MR and 2020-CA-0638-MR, 2021 WL
943753, at *3 (Ky. App. Mar. 12, 2021) (“Conditions of confinement claims are
civil in nature; as such, the sentencing court is not the proper forum to address
them.”). And, while such a suit could possibly provide Morris with some measure
of injunctive and/or other civil relief, it cannot provide him with relief from his
criminal judgment. Gomez v. United States, 899 F.2d 1124, 1126 (11th Cir. 1990)
(“[R]elief of an Eighth Amendment violation does not include release from
confinement.”); Cook v. Hanberry, 596 F.2d 658, 660 (5th Cir. 1979) (“Assuming
[a]rguendo that his allegations of mistreatment demonstrate cruel and unusual
punishment, the petitioner still would not be entitled to release from prison. The
-4-
appropriate remedy would be to enjoin continuance of any practices or require
correction of any conditions causing him cruel and unusual punishment.”).
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we affirm the Pulaski
Circuit Court’s June 22, 2020 order.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Jeffery Allen Morris, pro se Daniel Cameron
West Liberty, Kentucky Attorney General of Kentucky
James Havey
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
-5-