Background
A Jefferson County grand jury indicted Jason Majors in 2011 for murder, tampering with physical evidence, and stalking. A jury convicted him of evidence tampering but could not reach a verdict on the other charges. After a mistrial was declared on those charges, Majors pleaded guilty to murder and stalking in exchange for a recommended aggregate sentence of 20 years, which the circuit court imposed.
More than eight years later, Majors unsuccessfully sought a recording of the grand jury testimony. He then moved pro se under Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02(d), (e), and (f) to vacate his conviction and sentence, alleging impropriety in the grand jury process and a violation of Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.16(3). The circuit court summarily denied the motion as lacking a factual basis or legal merit.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Majors failed to file his CR 60.02 motion within a reasonable time. He waited more than eight years without offering a reasonable explanation, even though his allegations concerned proceedings that occurred before his conviction and could have been raised earlier.
The court also held that CR 60.02 was procedurally unavailable because Majors could have pursued his claims before judgment, through an appeal from a conditional guilty plea, or in an RCr 11.42 motion. Even apart from those defects, Majors had no right under RCr 5.16 to post-conviction discovery of the grand jury materials and offered only a conclusory allegation of grand jury abuse rather than specific facts that would justify vacating the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- An unexplained delay of more than eight years was not a reasonable time for seeking relief under CR 60.02(d), (e), or (f).
- CR 60.02 cannot be used to revive issues that could have been presented before judgment, on direct appeal, or through an RCr 11.42 motion.
- RCr 5.16 does not entitle a defendant to post-conviction discovery of grand jury transcripts, and speculation about possible irregularities does not satisfy the movant’s burden under CR 60.02.
Why It Matters
The opinion reinforces Kentucky’s sequential framework for challenging criminal judgments: direct appeal, then RCr 11.42 relief, and only afterward CR 60.02 relief for qualifying issues that could not previously have been raised. A defendant cannot bypass waived or expired remedies by repackaging previously available claims as extraordinary-relief arguments.
It also confirms that inability to obtain grand jury materials years after conviction does not itself establish misconduct or justify setting aside a judgment. A CR 60.02 movant must timely allege concrete facts and special circumstances supporting relief.