{"content":[{"text":"II. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT","bbox":{"left":0.087255,"top":0.113779,"width":0.2594540000000001,"height":0.021357}},{"text":"A.","bbox":{"left":0.118078,"top":0.163325,"width":0.018235000000000015,"height":0.020144999999999996}},{"text":"Applegate v. Dickman Law Offices, P.S.C.","bbox":{"left":0.166699,"top":0.164523,"width":0.3266819999999999,"height":0.018851000000000007}},{"text":"2014-CA-002031 12/22/2016 2016 WL 7405776 \n Opinion by Judge VanMeter; Judges Maze and Taylor concurred.","bbox":{"left":0.098039,"top":0.199709,"width":0.555369,"height":0.043532000000000015}},{"text":"On review from the dismissal of a legal malpractice action, the Court of Appeals \n affirmed, holding that the malpractice cause of action against appellees was barred \n by operation of the statute of limitations pursuant to KRS 413.245. Appellant \n plead guilty to two counts of possession of matter portraying a sexual performance \n by a minor; the remainder of the charges against him were dismissed, and he was \n sentenced to serve two consecutive four-year terms of imprisonment on May 27, \n 2011. On March 5, 2013, appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, \n alleging that his plea and sentence were based upon an unconstitutional ex post \n facto application of the law. The circuit court issued the writ and appellant was \n released on April 18, 2013. Appellant then filed a legal malpractice action against \n appellees on June 2, 2014. However, the action was dismissed on the grounds \n that a collateral attack on a criminal conviction does not toll the statute of \n limitations on a claim of malpractice against a criminal defense attorney, and that \n the statute had expired on the malpractice claim on March 5, 2014 - one year after \n appellant filed the petition for the writ. The Court of Appeals reaffirmed, citing \n Bryant v. Howell, 170 S.W.3d 421 (Ky. App. 2005) and Faris v. Stone, 103 \n S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2003), that the filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus does \n not toll the statute of limitations in a malpractice action. Since a petition for a \n writ of habeas corpus is a collateral attack on the judgment, the one-year period of \n limitation began to run when appellant’s conviction was final or, at the very latest, \n when appellant discovered that he was being unlawfully detained as a result of his \n attorney’s alleged malpractice and filed his petition for a writ. Therefore, the \n action was not timely filed and dismissal was merited.","bbox":{"left":0.117686,"top":0.257827,"width":0.679019,"height":0.420629}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}