Case v. Com.
Decision Date | 21 May 1971 |
Parties | David Alan CASE, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
David Alan Case, pro se.
John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., George F. Rabe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order adjudging, without an evidentiary hearing, that appellant was not entitled to the relief demanded in an RCr 11.42 proceeding. In May 1967 Case pleaded guilty to the offenses charged in seven indictments. Some of his sentences ran concurrently and others consecutively for a total of six years. He is now confined in the penitentiary.
A lawyer was appointed for Case and in November 1967 he filed his first RCr 11.42 proceeding. After an evidentiary hearing the court found that Case had been afforded his full rights both in the juvenile court, where the litigation originated, and in the trial court. An appeal was attempted but never perfected. On January 18, 1971, Case filed a second RCr 11.42 proceeding. The trial court ruled that:
RCr 11.42(3) provides that:
It is the duty of the states to provide post-conviction remedies to give prisoners the opportunity to demand that a court vacate a judgment when constitutional rights have been abridged or fundamental procedural fairness has not obtained. Long v. District Court of Iowa, 385 U.S. 192, 87 S.Ct. 362, 17 L.Ed.2d 290 (1966); Case v. Nebraska, 381 U.S. 336, 85 S.Ct. 1486, 14 L.Ed.2d 422 (1965).
To fulfill that duty we fashioned the procedure authorized by RCr 11.42 and designed it to insure reasonably prompt attention and ease of presentation by the petitioner. We said in Jones v. Breslin, Ky., 385 S.W.2d 71 (1964); 'One of the reasons for establishing the post-conviction review procedure under RCr 11.42 was to fix the forum as being the same court under which the original sentence was had because all of the available records would be in that court and thus the expense and responsibility of copying and forwarding various transcripts would be obviated.' No specific time was fixed within which relief might be sought. McKinney v. Com., Ky., 445 S.W.2d 874 (1969). Pleadings prepared by the prisoner are not required to meet the standards of those applied to legal counsel. Brooks v. Com., Ky., 447 S.W.2d 614 (1969); Miller v. Com., Ky., 458 S.W.2d 453 (1970). Frequently rules are construed liberally in his favor. Moore v. Com., Ky., 394 S.W.2d 931 (1965). If he is indigent he is provided free counsel. Hammershoy v. Com., Ky., 398 S.W.2d 883 (1966); Stinnett v. Com., Ky., 446 S.W.2d 292 (1969). Assistance may not be denied him. Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969). The record is supplied at no expense to him. Robinson v. Pound, Ky., 432 S.W.2d 645 (1968); Wade v. Wilson, 396 U.S. 282, 90 S.Ct. 501, 24 L.Ed.2d 470 (1970). Other litigants are not treated so liberally. However, for those benefits the applicant incurs certain obligations among which are that he must be truthful or he forfeits his right to relief (Commonwealth v. Miller,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Crumes
...vacate a judgment when constitutional rights have been abridged or fundamental procedural fairness has not obtained," Case v. Commonwealth , 467 S.W.2d 367, 368 (Ky. 1971) (citations omitted). In terms of the unsupported scientific arguments Crumes offers for distinguishing his motion from ......
-
Martin v. Commonwealth, 2013-CA-001851-MR
...as those prepared by legal counsel, and rules are frequently construed liberally in the pro se litigant's favor. See Case v. Commonwealth, 467 S.W.2d 367, 368 (Ky.1971). However, an individual proceeding pro se "must accommodate the court by specifying all of the complaints of which he hask......
-
Crick v. Com.
...motions. Satterly v. Commonwealth, Ky., 441 S.W.2d 144 (1969); Hampton v. Commonwealth, Ky., 454 S.W.2d 672 (1970); Case v. Commonwealth, Ky., 467 S.W.2d 367 (1971); Butler v. Commonwealth, Ky., 473 S.W.2d 108 (1971); and Lycans v. Commonwealth, Ky., 511 S.W.2d 232 See Bingham v. Commonweal......
-
Steadman v. Commonwealth, No. 2007-CA-001264-MR (Ky. App. 4/16/2010)
...7. While we recognize that the pro se pleadings are not to be held to the same standard as those of an attorney, (See Case v. Commonwealth, 467 S.W.2d 367, 368 (Ky. 1971)), issues raised upon appeal still must be preserved. Moreover, Kentucky courts still require pro se litigants to follow ......