Durand Edward Murrell v. Don Bottom Warden, Northpoint Training Center, 2016 SC 000076

Background

In 1993 Murrell received a 42-year Kentucky state sentence; in 1994 he received a consecutive 152-month federal sentence.
The FBOP lodged a detainer; in January 2001 the Kentucky Parole Board (KPB) paroled Murrell to federal custody and he served in federal custody ~11 years.
FBOP released Murrell from federal supervision in September 2012; he immediately resumed active state parole supervision.
KPB revoked Murrell’s state parole in October 2013 after new charges; Murrell filed a habeas petition in Boyle Circuit Court after exhausting administrative remedies.
Murrell argued DOC permanently relinquished jurisdiction when it paroled him to the federal detainer in 2001; Warden Bottom and lower courts relied on Marcum and KRS 439.340(2) to deny relief.
The Kentucky Supreme Court reviewed de novo, rejected the lower courts’ narrow reading of habeas law and applied precedent overruling the forfeiture rule (Hale), affirming denial of habeas relief.

Issues

Issue	Murrell's Argument	Bottom's Argument	Held
Whether habeas is available only when the underlying judgment is void ab initio	Murrell argued DOC relinquished jurisdiction, making his continued detention unlawful regardless of whether the conviction is void	Bottom argued Marcum limits habeas to challenges showing the conviction is void ab initio and that KRS 439.340(2) preserved DOC jurisdiction	Court held Marcum does not limit habeas to only void-ab-initio judgments; other defects in the legality of restraint can justify habeas, but Murrell’s claim still fails on other grounds
Whether paroling a prisoner to a federal detainer in 2001 constituted relinquishment (forfeiture) of Kentucky’s jurisdiction	Murrell argued the KPB’s parole to federal authorities relinquished Kentucky’s jurisdiction so he could not be returned to serve remaining state time	Bottom argued (and lower courts relied) that parole to a detainer does not relinquish jurisdiction and KRS 439.340(2) supports that position	Court held the 2003 decision overruling the forfeiture rule (Hale) controls; DOC did not forfeit jurisdiction when Murrell was paroled to federal custody, so Murrell’s claim fails
Whether KRS 439.340(2) (added language post-2001) can be applied to preserve jurisdiction retroactively	Murrell asserted retroactive application would violate presumption against retroactivity and possibly ex post facto protections	Bottom relied on the statute’s language that parole to a detainer does not constitute relinquishment of jurisdiction	Court declined to decide retroactivity/ex post facto question because Hale’s overruling of the forfeiture rule resolves the case in Bottom’s favor
Whether Murrell was entitled to release because parole restraints render habeas review appropriate despite being on parole at time of review	Murrell emphasized parole restraints are substantial and warrant habeas consideration	Bottom argued habeas was inappropriate absent void conviction	Court agreed parole restraints warrant habeas consideration but denied relief on jurisdictional/forfeiture grounds

Key Cases Cited

Marcum v. Commonwealth, 873 S.W.2d 207 (Ky. 1994) (discusses relationship between habeas and RCr 11.42; identifies void-ab-initio ground for habeas but not as exclusive basis)
Walters v. Smith, 599 S.W.2d 164 (Ky. 1980) (parole restraints justify habeas consideration)
Brock v. Sowders, 610 S.W.2d 591 (Ky. 1980) (habeas relief appropriate when prisoner is serving sentence in wrong jurisdiction)
Hardy v. Howard, 458 S.W.2d 764 (Ky. 1970) (habeas relief where prisoner held beyond satisfaction of sentence)
Thomas v. Schumaker, 360 S.W.2d 215 (Ky. 1962) (illustration of historical forfeiture rule—unauthorized transfer = relinquishment of jurisdiction)
Commonwealth v. Hale, 96 S.W.3d 24 (Ky. 2003) (overruled the forfeiture rule; held Kentucky does not necessarily relinquish jurisdiction when parolee is surrendered to another jurisdiction)