Pharo Wilson v. Commonwealth of Kentucky ( 2022 )

RENDERED: JANUARY 7, 2022; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2020-CA-1619-MR
PHARO WILSON APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE PATRICIA M. SUMME, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 12-CR-00765
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: COMBS, DIXON, AND MAZE, JUDGES.
DIXON, JUDGE: Pharo Wilson, pro se, appeals the order of the Kenton Circuit
Court denying his motion for relief pursuant to CR1 60.02, entered on November
25, 2020. Following a careful review of the briefs, record, and law, we affirm.
1
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2014, Wilson was convicted of three counts of criminal attempt to
commit murder, being a persistent felony offender in the second degree, and
possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. The underlying facts concerning his
convictions were summarized in his direct appeal in Wilson v. Commonwealth, No.
2014-SC-000392-MR, 2015 WL 5655524 (Ky. Sep. 24, 2015), and his appeal
concerning denial of his RCr2 11.42 motion alleging he received ineffective
assistance of counsel in Wilson v. Commonwealth, No. 2017-CA-001452-MR,
2019 WL 168687, at *1 (Ky. App. Jan. 11, 2019). Rather than recount all the
salacious details herein, we choose to adopt those statements of facts and include
only a brief recitation of the facts pertinent to this appeal.
On January 11, 2019, Wilson moved the trial court to correct his
sentence pursuant to CR 60.02. On June 6, 2019, the trial court denied his motion.
Wilson belatedly appealed from that order.
On September 2, 2020, Wilson again moved the trial court for relief
pursuant to CR 60.02. After the matter was fully briefed, the trial court denied his
motion, and this appeal followed.
2
Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure.
-2-
ANALYSIS
Wilson’s attempt to obtain relief in this fashion is not allowed by the
rules governing post-conviction relief. In Gross v. Commonwealth, 648 S.W.2d
853, 856 (Ky. 1983), the Court stated “[t]he structure provided in Kentucky for
attacking the final judgment of a trial court in a criminal case is not haphazard and
overlapping, but is organized and complete. That structure is set out in the rules
related to direct appeals, in RCr 11.42, and thereafter in CR 60.02.” As Wilson has
utilized post-conviction attacks by direct appeal, via RCr 11.42 and CR 60.02, his
attempt to obtain relief by filing a successive CR 60.02 motion is improper.
Wilson is not entitled to relief because the grounds asserted in his motion are
grounds that were, or could have been, raised in his direct appeal, through his RCr
11.42, motion or his prior CR 60.02 motion. Thus, he is precluded from raising
them in this manner. See Gross, 648 S.W.2d at 856.3
CONCLUSION
Therefore, and for the foregoing reasons, the order entered by the
Kenton Circuit Court is AFFIRMED.
ALL CONCUR.
3
Wilson’s brief only challenges the language of the trial court’s final judgment, entered on July
2, 2014. Any discussion by Wilson concerning the Kentucky Department of Corrections in his
brief was purely informational and to provide context for the basis of his current appeal.
-3-
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Pharo Wilson, pro se Daniel Cameron
West Liberty, Kentucky Attorney General of Kentucky
Matthew R. Krygiel
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
-4-