Durand Edward Murrell v. Don Bottom Warden, Northpoint Training Center
2017 Ky. LEXIS 77
| Ky. | 2017Background
- Durand Edward Murrell, serving state sentences from 1993 and a federal sentence from 1994, was paroled by the Kentucky Parole Board (KPB) to a federal detainer in 2001 and transferred to federal custody.
- Murrell completed his federal supervision and was released to state parole supervision in 2012; his state parole was revoked in 2013 after new charges.
- Murrell petitioned the Boyle Circuit Court for a writ of habeas corpus arguing Kentucky permanently relinquished jurisdiction when it paroled him to the federal detainer in 2001.
- Warden Don Bottom (DOC) defended on grounds that habeas relief is limited to judgments void ab initio (citing Commonwealth v. Marcum) and that KRS 439.340(2) preserves DOC jurisdiction when paroling to another jurisdiction.
- The circuit court denied relief; the Court of Appeals affirmed; the Kentucky Supreme Court granted discretionary review and addressed legal issues de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas relief is available only where the underlying conviction is void ab initio | Murrell: habeas may challenge illegal restraint even if conviction is valid (he was held beyond lawful authority) | Bottom: Marcum limits habeas to judgments void ab initio; RCr 11.42 is proper remedy for other challenges | Court: Marcum was misread; habeas is not limited to void ab initio judgments — it may reach other illegal restraints (e.g., custody beyond lawful term) |
| Whether DOC relinquished jurisdiction by paroling Murrell to a federal detainer in 2001 (forfeiture rule) | Murrell: unauthorized transfer forfeited Kentucky's right to enforce remaining state sentence | Bottom: DOC retained jurisdiction; parole to detainer did not relinquish control (statutory and custody arguments) | Court: Forfeiture rule repudiated in Hale; DOC did not forfeit its right to require Murrell to serve remaining state sentence upon return |
| Whether KRS 439.340(2) (2002 amendment stating parole to detainer does not relinquish jurisdiction) controls Murrell's 2001 parole and whether retroactive application/ex post facto concerns arise | Murrell: statute was enacted after 2001 and is not retroactive; retroactive application would raise ex post facto issues | Bottom: relied on current KRS 439.340(2) to assert retention of jurisdiction | Court: Declined to decide retroactivity or ex post facto issues because Hale and other precedent dispose of the case — no need to apply 2002 amendment retroactively |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Marcum, 873 S.W.2d 207 (Ky. 1994) (discusses relationship between habeas relief and RCr 11.42; identifies void ab initio as one ground for habeas)
- Walters v. Smith, 599 S.W.2d 164 (Ky. 1980) (parole restraints are sufficient to invoke habeas corpus review)
- Brock v. Sowders, 610 S.W.2d 591 (Ky. 1980) (habeas available when prisoner is serving sentence in wrong jurisdiction)
- Hardy v. Howard, 458 S.W.2d 764 (Ky. 1970) (habeas relief for detention beyond satisfaction of sentence)
- Vickery v. Lady, 264 S.W.2d 683 (Ky. 1953) (early discussion of habeas purpose to test legality of restraint)
- Thomas v. Schumaker, 360 S.W.2d 215 (Ky. 1962) (applied forfeiture rule when state lacked authority to surrender custody)
- Commonwealth v. Hale, 96 S.W.3d 24 (Ky. 2003) (overruled the forfeiture rule; held state did not forfeit jurisdiction by paroling to another jurisdiction)