RENDERED: DECEMBER 1, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2022-CA-1430-MR
BRANDON DAWSON APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM MASON CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE STOCKTON B. WOOD, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 17-CR-00030
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; ECKERLE AND KAREM, JUDGES.
THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: Brandon Dawson, pro se, appeals from an order of
the Mason Circuit Court which denied his Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR)
60.02(f) motion. We find no error and affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 28, 2017, Appellant entered a guilty plea to second-
degree assault1 and being a persistent felony offender in the second degree.2
Appellant agreed to, and received, a term of imprisonment of eighteen years. On
September 2, 2022, Appellant filed the underlying CR 60.02(f) motion. In it, he
requested that his sentence be amended because he was more susceptible to
COVID-19 due to him having Hepatitis C. He also argued that his family was
undergoing some hardships and he would be able to help if he were out of prison.
Finally, he argued that he should be released from prison due to prison
overpopulation and understaffing. The trial court denied the motion and this
appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
Appellant raises the same issues on appeal. He argues that the trial
court should have granted his motion due to COVID-19, familial hardship, prison
overpopulation, and prison understaffing.
CR 60.02 functions as a means by which a party
may seek relief from a final judgment, based upon any
reason of an extraordinary nature justifying relief. CR
60.02(f)[.] We review a trial court’s disposition of a CR
60.02 motion for an abuse of discretion. The test for
abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge’s decision
1
Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 508.020.
2
KRS 532.080(2).
-2-
was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by
sound legal principles.
Ramsey v. Commonwealth, 453 S.W.3d 738, 739 (Ky. App. 2014) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).
We find no merit to Appellant’s argument on appeal. Physical
ailments and familial hardships are not grounds to amend or vacate a sentence
pursuant to CR 60.02. Id. Furthermore, CR 60.02 is a mechanism in which a court
can “address significant defects in the trial proceedings.” Id. (citation omitted).
COVID-19, familial hardship, prison overpopulation, and prison understaffing are
not defects in trial proceedings; therefore, CR 60.02 does not apply in this case.
Appellant also argues that he has recently expunged the prior felony
conviction used to enhance his sentence pursuant to the persistent felony offender
statute. He claims he should not have to serve an enhanced sentence. There is
nothing in the record to confirm this allegation and this argument was not raised in
the trial court; however, at the time of his current conviction, the prior felony
conviction was still a part of his criminal record and was properly used to enhance
his punishment.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. The
court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s CR 60.02 motion.
-3-
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Brandon Dawson, pro se Daniel Cameron
Burgin, Kentucky Attorney General of Kentucky
J. Grant Burdette
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
-4-