Cleyon D. Tanner v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
2020 CA 001431
Ky. Ct. App.Nov 18, 2021Background
- In December 2019 Cleyon Tanner pled guilty to first-degree fleeing/evading and received a two-year prison sentence ordered to run consecutively to other sentences.
- In August 2020 Tanner filed a post-conviction motion under CR 60.02 and an independent action under CR 60.03 seeking suspension of his sentence or alternative confinement (e.g., home incarceration) because of fear of contracting COVID-19; he did not allege specific medical conditions.
- Tanner briefly asserted an Eighth Amendment basis (cruel and unusual punishment) tied to pandemic risks from close quarters confinement.
- The McCracken Circuit Court denied the motion; Tanner appealed pro se to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding CR 60.02 relief is limited to trial defects/factual errors, CR 60.03 relief is unavailable where CR 60.02 is inappropriate, and COVID-19 fear alone does not justify post-conviction relief or release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tanner) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of CR 60.02 relief for COVID-19 fear | CR 60.02/fraudulent extraordinary relief justified by pandemic risk to inmates | CR 60.02 is for correcting trial defects/factual errors, not general hardships | Denied — CR 60.02 requires extraordinary circumstances tied to trial proceedings; Tanner showed none |
| Availability of CR 60.03 independent equitable action | CR 60.03 permits relief on equitable grounds where CR 60.02 inadequate | CR 60.03 is not available when CR 60.02 relief is inappropriate and requires an independent action properly pleaded | Denied — Tanner did not file an independent action and cannot obtain CR 60.03 relief after failing CR 60.02 criteria |
| Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim | Continued incarceration during pandemic constitutes unconstitutional punishment/denial of due process | Such constitutional claims are civil conditions-of-confinement actions against prison officials (warden), not post-conviction motions; success would not result in immediate release | Denied — claim improperly raised in sentencing court; remedy is a civil suit naming proper parties and would not necessarily produce release |
| Applicability of federal compassionate-release authority | Federal COVID compassionate-release cases support early release | Federal compassionate-release statute applies to federal, not state, prisoners | Denied — federal compassionate-release procedures do not provide a basis for relief to a state prisoner |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnett v. Commonwealth, 979 S.W.2d 98 (Ky. 1998) (CR 60.02 requires a high, extraordinary standard)
- Bustamonte v. Commonwealth, 140 S.W.3d 581 (Ky. App. 2004) (CR 60.02 invoked only in most unusual circumstances)
- Leonard v. Commonwealth, 279 S.W.3d 151 (Ky. 2009) (coram nobis/CR 60.02 addresses factual errors, not legal errors)
- Ramsey v. Commonwealth, 453 S.W.3d 738 (Ky. App. 2014) (physical ailments not trial defects warranting CR 60.02)
- Wine v. Commonwealth, 699 S.W.2d 752 (Ky. App. 1985) (family hardships unrelated to trial proceedings are improper CR 60.02 grounds)
- Meece v. Commonwealth, 529 S.W.3d 281 (Ky. 2017) (CR 60.03 is equitable relief when no other avenue exists)
- Foley v. Commonwealth, 425 S.W.3d 880 (Ky. 2014) (relief denied under CR 60.02 bars relief under CR 60.03 for same grounds)
- Norton Healthcare, Inc. v. Deng, 487 S.W.3d 846 (Ky. 2016) (issues not raised below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal)
- United States v. Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000 (6th Cir. 2020) (example of federal compassionate-release denial despite serious health risks)