Helton v. Stivers

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Helton v. Stivers

385 S.W.2d 172

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky

DecidedDecember 18, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 385 S.W.2d 172 (Helton v. Stivers) 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.

Bluebook

Helton v. Stivers, 385 S.W.2d 172 (Ky. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

,CLAY, Commissioner,

In this- original proceeding petitioner has requested us to require respondent to enter “some sort of judgment” on a motion under RCr 11.42 filed by him in the Knox Circuit Court. The respondent has not filed a re- ( sponse.

It is alleged that petitioner’s motion was filed in the circuit court on August 8, 1964, and that respondent has failed to take any proceedings on that motion or to enter judgment. The nature of the proceeding under RCr 11.42 is such that the circuit court should expedite disposition of the motion. It may be that the motion could be disposed of summarily. See Oakes v. Gentry, Ky., 380 S.W.2d 237. If a hearing is required, it should be “prompt”. We are of the opinion that a four months’ delay in taking any proceedings after the filing of the motion, without some reason therefor being shown, is not in the best interests of the administration of justice. Consequently, we are directing respondent to proceed and dispose of the merits of this motion.

The petitioner’s request is granted and respondent is directed forthwith to take whatever proceedings are necessary in the disposition of this motion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

,CLAY, Commissioner,

In this- original proceeding petitioner has requested us to require respondent to enter “some sort of judgment” on a motion under RCr 11.42 filed by him in the Knox Circuit Court. The respondent has not filed a re- ( sponse.

It is alleged that petitioner’s motion was filed in the circuit court on August 8, 1964, and that respondent has failed to take any proceedings on that motion or to enter judgment. The nature of the proceeding under RCr 11.42 is such that the circuit court should expedite disposition of the motion. It may be that the motion could be disposed of summarily. See Oakes v. Gentry, Ky., 380 S.W.2d 237. If a hearing is required, it should be “prompt”. We are of the opinion that a four months’ delay in taking any proceedings after the filing of the motion, without some reason therefor being shown, is not in the best interests of the administration of justice. Consequently, we are directing respondent to proceed and dispose of the merits of this motion.

The petitioner’s request is granted and respondent is directed forthwith to take whatever proceedings are necessary in the disposition of this motion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

385 S.W.2d 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helton-v-stivers-kyctapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack