Alan Hummel v. Honorable Gregory M. Bartlett

Supreme Court of Kentucky
2021-SC-0164-MR
ALAN HUMMEL APPELLANT
ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
v. NO. 2020-CA-1475
KENTON CIRCUIT COURT NO. 06-CR-00580
GREGORY M. BARTLETT APPELLEE
AND
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY REAL PARTY IN INTEREST/
APPELLEE
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING
The Petition for Rehearing filed by the Appellant of the Opinion of the
Court rendered December 16, 2021, is DENIED. That Opinion is, however,
modified and replaced by the attached Opinion.
All sitting. All concur.
ENTERED: June 16, 2022
_______________________________________
CHIEF JUSTICE
IMPORTANT NOTICE
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION
THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED “NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.”
PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C),
THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE
CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER
CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER,
UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS,
RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR
CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED
OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE
BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION
BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED
DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE
ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE
DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE
ACTION.
RENDERED: DECEMBER 16, 2022
MODIFIED: JUNE 16, 2022
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Supreme Court of Kentucky
2021-SC-0164-MR
ALAN HUMMEL APPELLANT
ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
v. NO. 2020-CA-1475
KENTON CIRCUIT COURT NO. 06-CR-00580
GREGORY M. BARTLETT APPELLEE
AND
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY REAL PARTY IN INTEREST/
APPELLEE
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
AFFIRMING
Alan Hummel appeals to this Court from the Court of Appeals’ order that
denied as moot his application for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court
to rule on his post-conviction motions, the trial court having ruled on
Hummel’s motions during the pendency of the writ action. We affirm the Court
of Appeals.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The trial court entered judgment in 2010, sentencing Hummel to life in
prison following his conviction for first-degree rape, third-degree rape, and for
being a second-degree persistent felony offender. In July 2020, Hummel filed
post-conviction motions. Four months later and before the trial court ruled on
these motions, Hummel filed a motion to compel a ruling on those motions. In
December 2020, Hummel filed this original action in the Court of Appeals,
seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on his pending
post-conviction motions.
In February 2021, before the Court of Appeals ruled on Hummel’s
pending writ petition, the trial court entered an order disposing of Hummel’s
post-conviction motions. Because the trial court’s ruling disposed of the
matter in controversy, the Court of Appeals dismissed as moot Hummel’s
pending writ application. He now appeals that decision to this Court.
II. ANALYSIS
We agree with the Court of Appeals that Hummel’s writ request is moot.
Before this Court reaches the merits of any issue raised, it must ask whether
the issue is justiciable.1 One requirement of justiciability is that the issue
must be live.2 Generally speaking, when an appeal is pending and an event
occurs that makes the resolution of the issue on appeal meaningless, the
1 Commonwealth Cabinet for Health & Fam. Servs., Dep’t for Medicaid Servs. v.
Sexton ex rel. Appalachian Reg’l Healthcare, Inc., 566 S.W.3d 185, 192 (Ky. 2018) (“All
Kentucky courts have the constitutional duty to ascertain the issue of constitutional
standing, acting on their own motion, to ensure that only justiciable causes proceed in
court, because the issue of constitutional standing is not waivable.” (emphasis
added)).
2 Benton v. Clay, 233 S.W. 1041, 1042 (Ky. 1921) (“A ‘moot case’ is one which
seeks to get a judgment . . . upon some matter which, when rendered, for any reason,
cannot have any practical legal effect upon a then existing controversy.” (citation
omitted)).
appeal should be dismissed as moot.3 That is the case here. Hummel’s
original action in the Court of Appeals aimed to force the trial court to rule on
his post-conviction motions. And the trial court did rule on Hummel’s pending
motions before the Court of Appeals could take up his writ request. So the
issue before the Court of Appeals was resolved such that a ruling by that court
would have no practical legal effect. The Court of Appeals ruled correctly, and
we affirm their ruling.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ holding that Hummel’s
petition for a writ of mandamus is moot.
All sitting. All concur.
3 Louisville Transit Co. v. Dep't of Motor Transp., 286 S.W.2d 536, 538 (Ky.
1956); see also Choate v. Koorsen Protective Servs., Inc., 929 S.W.2d 184, 184 (Ky.
1996).