RENDERED JULY 19 2024' 10 00 A M NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

(flammnnmealth 11f warmth}; QImxrt at Armada NO 2023 CA 0860 MR ANTONIO WILLIAMSON APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v HONORABLE ERICJ HANER JUDGE ACTION NO 08 CR 002736

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE ACREE CETRULO AND TAYLOR JUDGES TAYLOR JUDGE Antonio Williamson brings this appeal from a May 12 2014 order of the Jefferson Circuit Court revoking his probation and imposing a seven year sentence of imprisonment For the reasons stated, the appeal is dismissed On April 22, 2008, Williamson was arrested and charged with seven counts of burglary in the first degree Williamson subsequently entered a guilty plea to two counts of burglary in the third degree By Judgment of Conviction Granting Probation entered December 31, 2008 Williamson was sentenced to seven years imprisonment probated for a period of five years Over the next several years, the Commonwealth filed numerous motions to revoke Williamson’s probation based upon various alleged probation violations; however, his probation was not revoked Then, by motion filed August 2013, the Commonwealth again moved to revoke Williamson 5 probation following yet another alleged probation violation A hearing upon the Commonwealth’s motion to revoke Williamson’s probation was subsequently conducted on May 7, 2014 By order entered May 12, 2014, Williamson 5 probation was revoked, and the seven year sentence of imprisonment was imposed Some nine years later, on May 17, 2023, a motion to reconsider the court’s May 12, 2014 order revoking Williamson’s probation was filed on his behalf By order entered May 22, 2023, the circuit court denied the motion to reconsider This matter came before the Court on May 22 2023, at motion hour, on a motion to set aside the Court 5 order revoking [Williamson’s] probation which was entered on May 7, 2014, on the basis that [Williamson] was not on probation at the time of revocation [Williamson] did not appear, but rather his “POA” [Power of Attorney] appeared for him, and she advised that [Williamson] is in custody in Oldham County (not on this case) In reviewing the file it appears that this motion may have actually been filed by Valencia Cox, the alleged FDA and not by [Williamson] The Court advised Ms Cox that she is not an attorney, and cannot act as [Williamson’s] legal representative She then asked the Court to set a hearing date and have [Williamson] brought in for a hearing The court advised Ms Cox that it was denying the motion since the sentence in this case has been discharged, and that any error had to be raised at the hearing held on May 7 2014, or within thirty (30) days thereafier Ms Cox then requested due process, and the Court advised her that the motion was being denied based on the Court 5 review of the case file, and there was no need to hold a hearing She then asked for a written order for an appeal Wherefore IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that [Williamson’s] motion is DENIED This is a final and appealable order May 22 2023 Order at 1 As noted in the above order the May 17 2023, motion to reconsider the May 12, 2014, order revoking Williamson’s probation appears to have been filed by Valencia Cox, as attorney in fact for Williamson ' The motion to reconsider was signed in the following manner “Antonio Dionte Williamson Trust” and ‘ Respectfully Submitted By /s/ Antonio ’ However, as noted by the circuit court, Cox “is not an attorney, and cannot act as [Williamson’s] legal representative ’ May 22 2023 Order at 1 Relevant to the current appeal is that the notice of appeal taken from the May 22 2023 Order was ‘ Submitted By

' The trial record contains a document entitled General & Durable Power of Attorney that purports to appoint Valencia Cox as Antonio Dionte Williamson 3 lawlul attorney in tact Trial Record at 155

Antonio Dionte Williamson, bene by POA Valencia Cox ” Trial Record at 172 And the appellant s brief filed on behalf of Williamson was Submitted By Authorized Representative for Appellant It is well established that “a power of attorney does not grant the possessor [of same] the ability to represent that person in a court of law ” Baldwm v Mollette 527 S W 3d 830 835 (Ky App 2017) In fact the right to represent another person in a court of law “is reserved for members of the bar” Id More particularly, “only persons who are admitted to the bar may practice law and represent others” and the one exception is that person may act pro se on his own behalf Id Thus, Cox could not act as Williamson’s attorney in fact by filing the notice of appeal and the appellant’s brief in this appeal such representation constitutes the unauthorized practice of law See 1d Accordingly, the appellant’s brief filed in this appeal by Valencia Cox, on behalf of Williamson, shall be stricken and the appeal dismissed for the reasons stated Now therefore be it ORDERED that the brief filed on behalf of appellant, Antonio D Williamson, in Appeal No 2023 CA 0860 MR is hereby STRICKEN and Appeal No 2023 CA 0860 MR is hereby DISMISSED

ALL CONCUR \

i C LNTFRED Jul) 19 2024 JU if URT O Pl-Al S

BRILi FOR APPELLANT BRIEF FOR APPEl l I F.

Antonio Williamson Daniel] Camcmn I ouisvillc Kentucky Attorne} General Authorized Representative for Fiankfon Kentuck) Appellant J Giant Bundette Assistant Attorne) Gum 1| Flanktort Kentuek}