DERRICK BARNETT v. STEVE BERRY, Warden, Luther Luckett Correctional Complex
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
September 19, 1997; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
NO. 96-CA-3444-MR
DERRICK BARNETT
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM OLDHAM CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE DENNIS A. FRITZ, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 96-CI-0507
v.
STEVE BERRY, Warden,
Luther Luckett Correctional Complex
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
* * *
BEFORE:
GUIDUGLI, JOHNSON AND SCHRODER, JUDGES.
SCHRODER, JUDGE:
Derrick Barnett (Barnett), an inmate at the
Luther Luckett Correctional Complex, appeals pro se from a
December 9, 1996, order of the Oldham Circuit Court denying his
petition for declaratory judgment pursuant to KRS 418.040.
Barnett claims the warden, Steve Berry, violated his due process
rights in the course of a disciplinary proceeding.
On June 26, 1996, prison officials obtained a urine
sample from Barnett.
It tested positive for the presence of
marijuana, and the next day, Barnett was charged with
unauthorized use of drugs or intoxicants.
The record reflects
that Barnett plead guilty at the adjustment committee hearing,
and he has not disputed that fact on appeal.
The committee
imposed a penalty which resulted in the loss of statutory goodtime.
Barnett appealed to Warden Steve Berry, who concurred with
the committee.
Barnett appealed a second time to the warden, who
again denied him relief.
Barnett filed a petition for declaratory judgment on
October 15, 1996, alleging irregularities in the chain of custody
of the urine sample.
The appellee filed a written response, with
affidavits, asking that the petition be denied and the action
dismissed because of Barnett's guilty plea and because the chain
of custody was in order.
After reviewing the petition, response,
and the affidavits, the circuit court denied the petition.
The
court entered its findings and order which found that Barnett's
challenge to the chain of custody was unfounded, and that his
guilty plea to the adjustment committee constituted a waiver of
his right to challenge the committee's decision, citing O'Dea v.
Clark, Ky. App., 883 S.W.2d 888 (1994).
The court entered
"summary judgment" on the clerk's docket sheet.
In this appeal, Barnett argues that the correction
officers did not follow the proper chain of custody procedure.
The circuit court found Barnett had the opportunity, before his
hearing, to inspect the evidence against him and to seek legal
aide.
More importantly, uncontroverted affidavits in the record
-2-
indicate Barnett plead guilty at the hearing.
Only later, on
appeal to the warden, did Barnett raise problems with the chain
of custody.
As the circuit court held, Barnett's guilty plea
acted as a waiver.
O'Dea v. Clark, Ky. App., 883 S.W.2d 888
(1994).
In O'Dea v. Clark, Clark plead guilty at his
administrative hearing.
Even though the chain of custody
resulting in his discipline was lacking, this Court held he had
waived his right to challenge the administrative punishment.
at 891.
Id.
Given Barnett's guilty plea, he cannot now challenge the
adjustment committee's action. There being no genuine issues of
material fact, nor issues of law, Warden Steve Berry is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.
CR 56 and Steelvest, Inc.,
supra.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Oldham
Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
-3-
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Derrick Barnett, Pro Se
LaGrange, Kentucky
Boyce A. Crocker
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.
