Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Moore v. Commonwealth

Kentucky Supreme Court

Decided May 18, 2006No. 2004-SC-0550-DG, 2004-SC-0552-DGPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRoach, Justice

Because this is the first time since Kentucky courts have operated under the modern civil and criminal rules that any appellate court of this Commonwealth has ignored the mandatory time-limitation contained in our rules governing appeals absent overriding requirements stemming from federal constitutional law, I dissent.

Appeals of post-conviction proceedings, such as those pursuant to RCr 11.42, are taken pursuant to RCr 12.04, which provides that “[t]he time within which an appeal may be taken shall be thirty (30) days after the date of entry of the judgment or order from which it is…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Griffin v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
  3. Douglas v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  4. Evitts v. LuceySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Fraser v. CommonwealthKentucky Supreme Court · 2001

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API