Ernest Merriweather v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
This text of Ernest Merriweather v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ernest Merriweather v. Commonwealth of Kentucky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
RENDERED: DECEMBER 17, 2021; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
NO. 2020-CA-1182-MR
ERNEST MERRIWEATHER APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM CHRISTIAN CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE ANDREW SELF, JUDGE ACTION NO. 14-CR-00183
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
OPINION AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE; DIXON AND JONES, JUDGES.
JONES, JUDGE: Ernest Merriweather filed a post-conviction motion under
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02 and 60.03, as well as the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, asking to be
released from incarceration due to the risk of contracting COVID-19. The
Christian Circuit Court denied the motion. Having reviewed the record and being
otherwise sufficiently advised, we affirm. On or about March 18, 2016, following Merriweather’s guilty plea to
the charge of first-degree sodomy, the trial court entered a judgment of conviction
sentencing Merriweather to twenty years in prison under the supervision of the
Kentucky Department of Corrections. He is currently housed at Eastern Kentucky
Correctional Complex (EKCC).
On August 21, 2020, acting without the assistance of counsel,
Merriweather filed a motion based on CR 60.02, CR 60.03, and the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to suspend further
execution of his sentence or, alternatively, to allow home incarceration.
Merriweather claims that his incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic puts
him at an elevated risk of contracting the virus because he suffers from diabetes
and hypertension. After the trial court denied his motion, Merriweather filed this
appeal.
A trial court ruling on a CR 60.02 motion “will not be overturned [on
appeal] except for an abuse of discretion.” Barnett v. Commonwealth, 979 S.W.2d
98, 102 (Ky. 1998). “The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge’s
decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal
principles.” Foley v. Commonwealth, 425 S.W.3d 880, 886 (Ky. 2014) (quoting
Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999)).
-2- The purpose of CR 60.02 is “to address significant defects in the trial
proceedings.” Ramsey v. Commonwealth, 453 S.W.3d 738, 739 (Ky. App. 2014)
(emphasis added). Merriweather’s sentence was imposed following his guilty plea.
He has not alleged any procedural or substantive defects that occurred with respect
to the entry of his plea or at the time the trial court entered its initial judgment. His
allegations concern EKCC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which began
approximately four years after Merriweather was sentenced. While we are
sympathetic to the fact that Merriweather’s medical condition places him at an
elevated risk, the simple fact remains that “[t]he hardships cited by [him] have no
relation to the trial proceedings or any additional undiscovered evidence not
presented at trial[.]” Wine v. Commonwealth, 699 S.W.2d 752, 754 (Ky. App.
1985). As such, we discern no abuse of discretion by the trial court with respect to
its denial of relief pursuant to CR 60.02. Id.
Merriweather is similarly not entitled to CR 60.03 relief. CR 60.03
states:
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 by motion under Rule 60.02, or would be barred because not brought in time under the provisions of that rule.
(Emphasis added.) Additionally,
-3- [r]elief [under CR 60.03] requires a showing of three elements: “Claimants must (1) show that they have no other available or adequate remedy; (2) demonstrate that movants’ own fault, neglect, or carelessness did not create the situation for which they seek equitable relief; and (3) establish a recognized ground . . . for the equitable relief.”
Meece v. Commonwealth, 529 S.W.3d 281, 295-96 (Ky. 2017) (quoting Bowling v.
Commonwealth, 163 S.W.3d 361, 365 (Ky. 2005)).
In addition to filing his motion in his criminal case and not as an
independent action as required by CR 60.03, Merriweather cannot show that no
other remedies are available to him. When conditions of confinement are at issue,
like they are here, the proper avenue is for the prisoner to pursue his claims
through the prison grievance system. See KRS1 454.415. If the prisoner still has
concerns after fully exhausting his administrative remedies, he may file a civil
action against the warden pursuant to KRS 418.040. A civil, conditions-of-
confinement suit is the appropriate way for Merriweather to raise his constitutional
challenges. 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.”). While such a suit could possibly provide
Merriweather with some measure of injunctive or other civil relief, it cannot
1 Kentucky Revised Statutes.
-4- provide him with relief from his criminal judgment, the remedy he sought before
the trial court. 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
appropriate remedy would be to enjoin continuance of any practices or require
correction of any conditions causing him cruel and unusual punishment.”).
For the foregoing reasons, the Christian Circuit Court’s order denying
Ernest Merriweather’s post-conviction motion is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Ernest Merriweather, pro se Daniel Cameron West Liberty, Kentucky Attorney General of Kentucky
Ken W. Riggs Assistant Attorney General Frankfort, Kentucky
-5-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ernest Merriweather v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ernest-merriweather-v-commonwealth-of-kentucky-kyctapp-2021.