Preview:

RENDERED:  DECEMBER 7, 2007; 2:00 P.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals

NO.  2006-CA-002289-MR CLINTON K. REGAN APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM LAUREL CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE GREGORY A. LAY, JUDGE ACTION NO.  01-CR-00195
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING ** ** ** ** ** BEFORE:  COMBS, CHIEF JUDGE; ACREE, JUDGE; HENRY,1 SENIOR JUDGE. ACREE, JUDGE:  Clinton Regan appeals, pro se, from an order of the Laurel Circuit Court denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and for the appointment of counsel to perfect his appeal.  Regan's notice of appeal incorrectly names this order, entered August 30, 2006, rather than the order denying his request for relief under Kentucky Civil Rule (CR) 60.02, entered August 21, 2006.  Due to his error, this Court never obtained jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the denial of CR 60.02 relief.
Consequently, this appeal is dismissed.
1 Senior Judge Michael L. Henry sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the Chief Justice
pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and KRS 21.580.

Regan was indicted on charges of murder, first-degree robbery, first-degree

burglary, felony theft, and being a persistent felony offender in the first degree after he and a co-defendant escaped from prison, broke into a home, killed the homeowner, and stole his car.  The Commonwealth filed notice of its intent to seek the death penalty. Regan's counsel was able to negotiate a plea bargain for a total sentence of thirty-five years.  After more than two years had passed, Regan filed a motion for post-conviction relief, pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and claiming that his guilty plea was involuntary.  The trial court denied his RCr 11.42 motion, and he appealed to this Court.
While his appeal on the RCr 11.42 motion was pending, Regan filed a motion to vacate his conviction under CR 60.02.  This motion contained similar allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntariness of his guilty plea. This Court placed the appeal of the order denying RCr 11.42 relief in abeyance while the trial court considered Regan's CR 60.02 motion.  The trial court's order of May 8, 2006, denied Regan's CR 60.02 motion on the grounds that the issues he raised were more appropriately addressed in his RCr 11.42 proceeding.  Unfortunately, the trial court's order was apparently mailed to the wrong correctional facility, and Regan did not receive notice that the trial court had denied his CR 60.02 motion in time to file an appeal.  After the trial court ruled on Regan's CR 60.02 motion, this Court placed the appeal from the denial of RCr 11.42 relief back on the active docket.  It was at this point that Regan became aware of the trial court's order denying his CR 60.02 motion.  We denied his
-2

Download 2006-ca-002289.pdf

Kentucky Law