MICHAEL R. PARRISH V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED : APRIL 23, 2009
TO BE PUBLISHED
ixyrtmQ C~Vurf of ~r
'
2007-SC-000782-,DG
[10")
MICHAEL R. PARRISH
APPELLANT
ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS
CASE NO . 2006-CA-001709-MR
FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT NO. 04-CR-00158
V.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE CUNNINGHAM
AFFIRMING
Because this appeal turns primarily upon procedural matters pertaining
to RCr 11 .42 and CR 60 .02, a detailed account of the facts will not be
necessary.
It is sufficient to recount that on or about August 30, 2004, the Franklin
County Sheriff's Department conducted a consent search of the home of
Appellant, Michael R . Parrish, wherein deputies seized thirty-four (34)
marijuana plants and equipment used for the growing of marijuana, including
transformers, lights, and fertilizer . A grand jury indicted Parrish on one count
of cultivating marijuana (five or more plants) . Parrish unsuccessfully moved
the trial court to suppress the evidence discovered during the search. On
March 25, 2005, Parrish entered an Alford plea in the Franklin Circuit Court
and was sentenced to one (1) year in prison, probated for two (2) years, with the
final judgment being entered on June 6, 2005 .
One year later, Parrish filed two pro se motions pursuant to CR 60 .02
and RCr 11 .42, attempting to vacate the judgment. At the time Parrish filed
his motions on June 6, 2006, as well as at the time the trial court entered its
order denying both motions on July 17, 2006, Parrish was on probation. On
August 15, 2006, Parrish filed his notice of appeal and his probation expired
while that appeal was pending.'
The Court of Appeals determined that Parrish could no longer seek relief
pursuant to RCr 11 .42 because his probation had expired prior to
consideration of the appeal . Parrish's request for relief under CR 60.02 was
also rejected by the Court of Appeals, holding that an evidentiary hearing was
not necessary as the record was sufficient to allow the trial court to make a
determination . Upon review, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals .
Parrish contends the Court of Appeals erred when it found his RCr 11 .42
motion became moot once he completed probation . RCr 11 .42(1) states as
follows :
A prisoner in custody under sentence or a defendant on probation,
parole or conditional discharge who claims a right to be released on
the ground that the sentence is subject to collateral attack may at
any time proceed directly by motion in the court that imposed the
sentence, to vacate, set aside or correct it.
Parrish argues that the rule requires only that the party seeking relief be
"in custody under sentence or . . . on probation" at the time relief is sought.
1 While it is not specifically conceded or stipulated, there is no dispute that Parrish's probation
expired without either revocation or extension on June 6, 2007, two years from the date of
judgment and sentence.
2
Thus, he argues, relief is available because he was still on probation at the time
he filed the motion .
We disagree . The language of the rule is plain and unambiguous that
relief is available only to "[a] prisoner in custody . . . or on probation[ .]" Our
predecessor Court expressly rejected an identical argument in Sipple v.
Commonwealth : "RCr 11 .42 does not provide, expressly or by implication, for
the review of any judgment other than the one or ones pursuant to which the
movant is being held in custody." 384 S .W .2d 332 (Ky. 1964) . Likewise, in
Wilson v. Commonwealth, our predecessor Court again explained : "RCr 11 .42
is procedural remedy designed to give a convicted prisoner a direct right to
attack the conviction under which he is being held. It is supplemental to the
right of habeas corpus, and we must accept the plain meaning of the language
of the rule." 403 S .W.2d 710, 712 (Ky. 1966) (emphasis added) .
Further, we note that Parrish's argument fails to consider the remedy
available under RCr 11 .42 . By its plain language, the rule is a mechanism by
which the party "claims a right to be released" from his sentence. It is
axiomatic that a person cannot be released from a sentence which has been
completed . For these reasons, we conclude the Court of Appeals did not err
when it found that Parrish, by virtue of having completed his sentence during
the pendency of his appeal, could not seek appellate relief from the denial of
his RCr 11 .42 motion.
Having rejected Parrish's arguments as they relate to his motion under
RCr 11 .42, we turn to his CR 60 .02 motion. Parrish's CR 60.02 motion
survives the completion of his sentence . In that motion, Parrish challenges the
3
validity of the search of his home . He argues that the investigating officers
gave false testimony at the suppression hearing regarding the time it took for
them to secure Parrish's consent, and that newly discovered evidence specifically, police dispatch recordings - support a finding that the officers gave
perjured testimony. According to Parrish, the recordings conclusively establish
that it took the officers over thirty minutes to obtain P arrish's consent to
search his house, as opposed to ten minutes as they testified at the
suppression hearing.
We review a trial court's denial of a CR 60 .02 motion for abuse of
discretion . Barnett v. Commonwealth, 979 S .W.2d 98, 102 (Ky. 1998) . There
is no such abuse here. The trial court correctly noted that an illegal search
and seizure cannot provide a basis for granting post-conviction relief, as the
admission of illegally obtained evidence is merely a trial error and does not
render the proceedings void. Carter v . Commonwealth, 450 S.W.2d 257 (Ky.
1970) . See also Wahl v. Commonwealth, 396 S .W.2d 774 , 775 (Ky. 1965) ("The
appellant challenged the legality of the search and seizure at the trial and is
not in a position to raise the same question in an RCr 11 .42 proceeding at this
time .") .
We also note that Parrish voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently
entered a guilty plea pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U .S . 25 (1970) .
In his CR 60.02 motion, Parrish is, in effect, challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence against him. The effect of entering a voluntary guilty plea is to waive
all defenses other than that the indictment charges no offense . Quarles v.
Commonwealth , 456 S .W.2d 693, 694 (Ky. 1970) . Parrish has forfeited the
opportunity to attack his conviction on these grounds.
To the extent that Parrish argues his guilty plea was coerced as a result
of the officers' alleged false testimony, this argument is refuted by the record .
The allegations made by Parrish in his motion, even if accepted as true, do not
call into question the validity of Parrish's consent to search. Furthermore, as
the trial court noted, there is nothing in the record to indicate that counsel
gave unsound advice, or otherwise improper advice, regarding a guilty plea. In
short, any assertion that Parrish's guilty plea was coerced is refuted by the
record and the trial court did not err in denying the motion without holding an
evidentiary hearing. Gross v . Commonwealth, 648 S .W.2d 853 (Ky. 1983) .
The Court of Appeals did not err in finding Parrish's RCr 11 .42 motion
became moot once he served his probation . Furthermore, the trial court did
not abuse its discretion in denying Parrish's motion for CR 60 .02 relief. For
these reasons, the opinion of the Court of Appeals is affirmed .
All sitting. All concur.
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT :
Michael R . Parrish, Pro Se
3885 Camp Pleasant Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE :
Jack Conway
Attorney General
David Wayne Barr
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Criminal Appeals
1024 Capital Center Drive
Frankfort, KY 40601-8204
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.