Blake Haddix v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

── Blake Haddix v. Commonwealth of Kentucky ── Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky Date: May 22, 2026 Author: Acree Category: General RENDERED: MAY 22, 2026; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2024-CA-0636-MR BLAKE HADDIX APPELLANT APPEAL FROM BREATHITT CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE LISA HAYDEN WHISMAN, JUDGE ACTION NO. 03-CR-00139 COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** ** BEFORE: ACREE, KAREM, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES. ACREE, JUDGE: Blake Haddix, pro se, appeals the Breathitt Circuit Court’s denial of his CR1 60.02 motion to vacate his conviction. We affirm. Haddix was convicted of murder and second-degree assault in 2006, which the Kentucky Supreme Court vacated and remanded for a hearing as to 1 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure. whether Haddix was entitled to a new trial based on alleged juror issues. Haddix v. Commonwealth, No. 2007-SC-000214-MR, 2008 WL 3890352 (Ky. Aug. 21, 2008) (Haddix I). The trial court conducted a hearing, denied Haddix a new trial, and resentenced him. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. Haddix v. Commonwealth, No. 2008-SC-000842-MR, 2009 WL 3526587 (Ky. Oct. 29, 2009) (Haddix II). Haddix subsequently attacked his conviction by filing motions pursuant to CR 60.02 and RCr2 11.42. This Court concluded: The circuit court’s denial of Blake Haddix’s CR 60.02 motion is affirmed. The denial of his RCr 11.42 motion is affirmed on all grounds except to the extent it ruled, without a hearing, that trial counsel’s failure to call witnesses to testify to the victim’s alleged propensity for violence did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. On that matter, the order is reversed and remanded. On remand, the circuit court must first appoint counsel to represent Haddix, and then conduct a hearing to determine whether the failure of Haddix’s trial counsel to call such witnesses constituted deficient performance and, if so, whether that deficiency was prejudicial to Haddix at trial. Haddix v. Commonwealth, No. 2010-CA-001190-MR, 2012 WL 246273, at *6 (Ky. App. Jan. 27, 2012) (Haddix III). The trial court conducted a hearing as instructed, denied Haddix’s RCr 11.42 motion, and we affirmed. Haddix v. 2 Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure. -2- Commonwealth, No. 2012-CA-001640-MR, 2014 WL 507380 (Ky. App. Feb. 7, 2014) (Haddix IV). With respect to the instant appeal, Haddix’s claims are not properly before this Court. In Berry v. Commonwealth, we explained: The 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. Relevantly, CR 60.02(e)-(f) provides that a court may relieve a movant from a judgment if it is void, or for other reasons of an extraordinary nature. However, CR 60.02 is only for relief that is not available by direct appeal or under RCr 11.42. Moreover, a defendant is precluded from raising claims which were, or reasonably could have been, raised in prior proceedings. 624 S.W.3d 119, 121 (Ky. App. 2021) (e