E. B. appeals from a Jefferson Family Court order terminating his parental rights to his children, C. B. and N. B. The Family Court’s order terminating his parental rights and transferring custody to the Cabinet for Families and Children (hereinafter “CFC”) is supported by clear and convincing evidence that the children are abused and neglected and that it is in their best interest to have their father’s parental rights terminated.1 Thus, we affirm.
Bailey v. Com., 2002-CA-001263
-- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Com. v. Bailey, 2002-CA-002172 -- Not Published;
Reversing -- PDF - Text
Bailey v. Com., 2002-CA-002204 -- Not Published;
Reversing and Remanding -- PDF - Text
Ballanger v. Com., 2002-CA-000130
-- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Baltimore v. Com., 2002-CA-002304 -- Published;
Affirmed -- PDF - Text
Bannister v. Com., 2001-CA-002772
-- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Barbour v. Com., 2001-CA-000883 -- Not Published;
Affirmed -- PDF - Text
Bard v. Com., 2000-CA-000757-MR -- Not Published; Affirmed in part, vacating and remanding in part.
Com. v. Barker, 2002-CA-000915
-- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Barker v. Com., 2002-CA-000786
-- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Com. v. Barker, 2002-CA-000915
-- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Barnes v. Com., 2001-CA-001546 -- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text
Bartley v. Com., 2001-CA-001248 -- Not Published;
Affirmed -- PDF - Text
Bautista v. Com., 2001-CA-001983 -- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Com. v. Bean, 2002-CA-001048 -- Not Published; Affirmed
-- PDF - Text Bearden v. Com., 2002-CA-000632
-- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Bell v. Com., 2002-CA-000379 and 2002-CA-000381 -- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF - Text
Bendingfield
v. Com., 2002-CA-000408
-- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Bennett v. Com., 2001-CA-002144 -- Not Published; Reversed & Remanded -- PDF - Text Berry v. Com., 2001-CA-001889 -- Not Published; Affirmed.
Berry v. Com., 2001-CA-002147
-- Not Published; Reversed and Remanding
Betar v. Com., 2002-CA-001515 -- Not Published;
Remanding and Reversing -- PDF - Text
Bigsby v. Com., 2002-CA-000553
-- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Birdo v. Com., 2000-CA-001896 - Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF - Text
Tanaka Lee Birdo appeals from an order of the
Jefferson Circuit Court designating him as a moderate risk sex
offender pursuant to KRS 17.570. We affirm. Bishop v. Com.,2002-CA-000726 -- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF - Text
Bixler v. Com., 2002-CA-000219
-- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Bledsoe v. Com., 2001-CA-002518
-- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Bobo v. Com., 2000-CA-000080
-- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Bock v. Com., 2002-CA-001110 -- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Bolen v. Com., 2002-CA-001376
-- Not Published; Affirming In Part, Vacating In Part, And Remanding
-- PDF - Text Bowersmith v. Com., 2001-CA-002584 -- Not Published; Reversed
Bowman v. Com., 2002-CA-000111
-- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Bradford v. Com., 2002-CA-001953
-- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Bramel v. Com., 2002-CA-001450 -- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF - Text
Bravo-Flint v. Com., 2002-CA-000144 -- Not
Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text
Brooks v. Com., 2002-CA-000983
-- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Brooks v. Com., 2002-CA-001634 -- Not Published;
Reversing and Remanding -- PDF - Text
Brown v. Com., 2002-CA-000150 -- Not Published; Reversed -- PDF - Text Brown v. Com., 2001-CA-000182 -- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Brown v. Com., 2002-CA-000424
-- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Brown v. Com., 2002-CA-002371 -- Not Published;
Affirmed -- PDF - Text
Browning v. Com., 2002-CA-000358 -- Not Published;
Affirmed -- PDF - Text
Bryant v. Com., 2001-CA-002159
-- Not Published; Affirming, Reversing and Remanding -- PDF - Text Buckner v. Com., 1999-CA-002901 -- Not Published; Affirmed.
Buford v. Com., 2002-CA-001290 -- Not Published;
Reversing and Remanding -- PDF - Text
Buford v. Com., 2002-CA-001290 -- Not Published;
Reversing and Remanding -- PDF - Text
Burrel v. Com., 2002-CA-001479 -- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF - Text
Bush v. Com., 2002-CA-000721 -- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF - Text
Bussell v. Com., 2002-CA-000994 -- Not Published;
Vacating and Remanding -- PDF - Text
Bussell v. Com., 1999-CA-001781 -- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Byrd v. Com., 2001-CA-002640
-- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Byrd v. Com., 2002-CA-000956 -- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF - Text
Byrd v. Com., 2003-CA-000210 -- Not Published;
Affirmed -- PDF - Text
Appellant Jaimie B. Bailey appeals from a May 15,
2002, order by the Fayette Circuit Court denying his Ky. R.
Crim. P. (RCr) 11.42 motion to vacate conviction based on
ineffective counsel. We affirm.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky appeals
from an Allen Circuit Court order suppressing a series of
incriminating statements that Bailey made on March 1, 2001,
based upon its conclusion that “[b]ecause of [Josh’s] substantial intellectual limitations, based upon the totality of
the circumstances, his will was overborne by his limited
intellect and therefore[,] the statements” were not voluntary.
Bennie Bailey brings this appeal from an October
8, 2002, order of the Martin Circuit Court denying his Ky. R.
Crim. P. (RCr) 11.42 motion. We reverse and remand.
The facts are these: Bailey was indicted on various
sexual abuse charges. Evidence was presented to the jury that
Bailey had raped and sodomized his three children, a daughter
and two sons.
Timothy Terrell Ballanger, pro se, has appealed
from an opinion and order entered by the Jefferson Circuit Court
on December 27, 2001, which denied his RCr 11.42 motion to
vacate, set aside or correct his 20-year sentence for robbery in
the first degree, criminal mischief in the first degree, operating a motor vehicle without an operator’s license, and
being a persistent felony offender in the first degree (PFO I).
Having concluded that the trial court properly denied the motion
as being untimely, we affirm.
Robert Lee Baltimore appeals from a
Fayette Circuit Court judgment sentencing him to ten years’
imprisonment on a conditional plea of guilty, pursuant to
Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 8.09, to several
counts of fraudulent use of a credit card and being a persistent felony offender in the first degree.
On August 21, 2001, Greg Bannister, the
appellant, pled guilty to the crime of cultivating more than
five plants of marijuana, second offense (KRS1 218A.1423(2)). He
appeals from the final judgment and five-year sentence of
imprisonment imposed by the Ballard Circuit Court on November
19, 2001.
The appellant, Larry Barbour, was convicted of
flagrant nonsupport1 and of being a persistent felony offender in
the second degree (PFO II). The jury recommended a sentence of five years on the charge of flagrant non-support -- enhanced to
ten years because of the PFO II conviction. The trial court
imposed judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict. Barbour
now appeals.
The affirmed part -- Bard appealed the applicability of the Sex Offender Registration Act upon him. He argued that it does not apply to him. The court disagreed saying that the legislature repealed the 1994 language that the appellant relies on in 1998 legislation. The court holds that the 1998 language (from "convicted" to "incarcerated") dramatically widened the scope of those covered by the Sex Offender Act. Relys on Hyatt v. Commonwealth, 72 S.W.3d 566 (Ky. 2002). The vacated and remanded part -- Court agrees with Bard's argument that it was error to admit his risk assessment report into evidence.
During questioning on an unrelated matter,
Rudolph Barker made statements to the police implicating himself
in a shooting. As a result, he was indicted for attempted
murder and robbery. Prior to trial he moved to suppress his
incriminating statements.
Kevin Barker has appealed from an order entered
by the McCracken Circuit Court on March 25, 2002, which denied
his CR1 60.02(d) motion for relief from his conviction for sexual
abuse in the first degree.2 Having concluded that the trial
court properly denied Barker’s CR 60.02(d) motion, we affirm.
During questioning on an unrelated matter,
Rudolph Barker made statements to the police implicating himself
in a shooting. As a result, he was indicted for attempted
murder and robbery. Prior to trial he moved to suppress his
incriminating statements.
Samantha E. Deaton Barnes1 brings this appeal
pursuant to a conditional guilty plea to the offense of criminal
facilitation to tamper with anhydrous ammonia equipment.
Joseph Donald Bartley, Jr. (Bartley) appeals
from the trial court's denial of his motion for relief from
judgment made under CR 60.03 and based on ineffective assistance
of counsel. Bartley argues that he has never had a meaningful
review of his ineffective assistance claim. Further, had he
received adequate representation, he would not have entered an
Alford plea in 1986 to various felony charges and to being a
persistent felony offender in the second degree.
On March 25, 2000, at 10:00 p.m., Paris Police
Officer J. C. Sword heard loud music coming from an automobile
parked in front of the Bourbon County Courthouse. Sword
approached the vehicle, intending to inform its occupant that there was a violation of the local noise ordinance. Lorenzo
Bautista occupied the driver's seat, and the motor was still
running. Sword detected a strong odor of alcohol emanating from
the vehicle.
Bavol v. Com., 2001-CA-001962-MR --
Not Published; Affirmed.
Appellant challenges her conviction of first-degree possession of a controlled substance. She argues that the trial court erred by giving a complicity instruction even though the Commonwealth did not discuss complicity in its case in chief. The court here says that any error was harmless as possession is lesser than complicity and cites Skinner v. Commonwealth, 864 S.W.2d 290 (Ky. 1993).
The Commonwealth of Kentucky has appealed from
the Hopkins Circuit Court’s April 19, 2002, order granting David
Bean’s (hereinafter 'Bean') motion for a new trial pursuant to
RCr 10.02. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court
properly ruled that the Commonwealth’s introduction of testimony
regarding Bean’s prior bad acts prejudiced the jury to the
extent that a new trial was warranted.
Joseph Bearden appeals from a judgment
and sentence alleging that the trial court erred when it denied
his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm.
On April 5, 2001, Bearden was indicted on twelve
counts of sodomy, first degree.
Steve B. Bell has appealed from a final
judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court entered on January 16,
2002, which sentenced him to prison for one year following his
conditional guilty plea to assault in the third degree.
Lawrence Bendingfield appeals from the Jefferson
Circuit Court’s denial of his CR 60.02 and RCr 10.26 motions to
correct the final judgment and sentence in his criminal trial.
We affirm.
Christopher Lee Bennett appeals from a
jury verdict convicting him of first-degree robbery. Bennett
contends that the prosecution made an improper reference to his
prior criminal record during voir dire; that the trial court
erred by not giving an instruction on criminal facilitation; and
that the trial court abused its discretion when it answered a written jury question instead of requiring the jury to figure
the answer from the instructions. Because the trial court's
response to one of the written jury questions, in combination
with the complicity jury instruction, encouraged the jury to
speculate regarding what was required to convict Bennett, we
reverse and remand for a new trial.
Appellant challenges his conviction of five counts of second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument. This direct appeal contains a multi-pronged attack on various decisions of the trial court. There were originally fifteen counts and the circuit judge granted a directed verdict on ten of them as the service station employee witnesses were unable to identify ten checks. The court here ultimately defers to the trial court judgment on motions for directed verdict and for a mistrial. An argument that the checks are not according-to-UCC written instruments is dismissed by discussing Perkins v. Commonwealth, Ky. App., 694 S.W.2d 721 (1985) which construed KRS 516.060(1).
Greg Berry appeals from the judgment of the
Hopkins Circuit Court, finding him guilty of assault in the
second degree and being a persistent felony offender in the
first degree. Berry argues on appeal that he was denied his
right to counsel, that his prosecution was barred by double
jeopardy, and that the court improperly instructed the jury on
the issue of self-defense. After a thorough review of the
record, we agree that he was denied his right to counsel
Gaylon Lee Betar appeals from a judgment
sentencing him to ten years’ imprisonment following his
conditional plea of guilty to the charges of facilitation to manufacture methamphetamine, being a persistent felony offender
in the second degree and possession of drug paraphernalia.
TCraig Bigsby (Bigsby) appeals from an order of
the Fayette Circuit Court revoking his mandatory three year
conditional discharge under Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS)
532.060. Bigsby argues that the trial court did not have
sufficient grounds to revoke his discharge when the court based
its decision primarily on Bigsby’s failure to sign the contract
to enter the sex offender treatment class.
Appellant Bobby Bishop appeals his conviction
in the Pendleton Circuit Court for trafficking in a controlled
substance in the first degree (methamphetamine), trafficking in
a controlled substance in the second degree (hydrocodone),
possession of a controlled substance in the first degree
(methamphetamine) and criminal attempt to manufacture
methamphetamine following a conditional guilty plea.
James G. Bixler (hereinafter appellant) was
convicted in the Fayette Circuit Court following a jury trial.
He received a fifteen year sentence and now appeals to this
court as a matter of right. On appeal, he argues that the
Fayette Circuit Court was not the correct venue for this
prosecution.
Kevin Bledsoe (hereinafter appellant) appeals
his conviction in the Fayette Circuit Court for two counts of
trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree and
one count of being a persistent felony offender in the first
degree.
Appellant appeals the order of the Jefferson
Circuit Court which classified him as a moderate risk sex
offender. Appellant challenges the Sex Offender Registration
Act on constitutional and jurisdictional grounds. We affirm.
On September 17, 2001, a Logan County Grand Jury
indicted Ronald Earl Bock, on ten counts which included
manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of anhydrous ammonia,
first-degree trafficking of methamphetamine, first-degree
possession of methamphetamine, first-degree wanton endangerment, tampering with physical evidence, possession of
drug paraphernalia, first-degree fleeing and evading,
possession of handgun by convicted felon, and being a persistent
felony offender in the second degree.
Seth Bolen appeals from an order of the McCracken
Circuit Court denying his motion for post-conviction relief
pursuant to RCr1 11.42. Bolen claims he received ineffective
assistance of counsel.
Bowersmith
appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress
evidence seized in a search of his business premises.
Bowersmith entered a plea of guilty on the charges, with the
condition that he be permitted to appeal the denial of the
motion to suppress. Appellant signed a consent form for an officer to search a bookstore. That form was signed with the verbal understanding that it was limited to the public area. Officer went behind the counter and found illegal substances. The court here cites both Commonwealth v. Fox, Ky., 48 S.W.3d 24, 27 (2001) and Foley v. Commonwealth, Ky., 953 S.W.2d 924, 934 (1997) to find that the search violated the consent.
Com. v. Bowles, 2002-CA-001568 -- Published, Affirming In Part, Vacating In Part And Remanding -- PDF - TextThe Commonwealth of Kentucky has appealed from
the June 25, 2002, Opinion and Order of the Jefferson Circuit
Court granting Jodie Charles Bowles’s (hereinafter Bowles)
motion to reconsider and voiding his 1993 convictions for
illegal possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) and illegal possession of a controlled substance (marijuana). We affirm in part, vacate in part and remand.
James Bowman has appealed from an order entered
by the Boone Circuit Court on November 14, 2001, that denied his
motion for relief from his criminal sentence pursuant to CR1
60.02. Having concluded that the circuit court did not err, we
affirm.
McKenzie Stone Bradford was initially convicted
by his plea of guilty to two counts of criminal possession of a
forged instrument, second degree. KRS 516.060. The trial court
entered a final judgment and sentence to probation on November
15, 1999. Bradford twice failed to comply with the terms of his
probation, and on March 27, 2001, the trial court entered a
final sentence revoking his probation and sentencing him to a
total indeterminate sentence of five years in the penitentiary.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered by
the Montgomery Circuit Court after a jury found appellant guilty
of first degree sexual abuse. For the reasons stated hereafter,
we affirm.
In December 2001, Pamela
Bravo-Flint pled guilty in the Meade Circuit Court to four counts of
first-degree sexual abuse, a class-D felony as defined in KRS 510.110, and one
count of distributing obscene matter to a minor, a class-A misdemeanor. 1 By
judgment entered December 28, 2001, the court sentenced her to concurrent
terms of imprisonment totaling one year and, pursuant to KRS 532.043, to a
three-year period of conditional discharge following her release from
incarceration or parole. Bravo-Flint contends that KRS 532.043 amounts to an
unconstitutional usurpation of the judicial function and thus that the
conditional-discharge portion of her sentence is
unlawful.
Carlos Brooks entered an Alford1 plea to
illegal possession of cocaine and illegal possession of drug
paraphernalia and was released on his own recognizance pending a
scheduled July 31, 2000, sentencing hearing. As a part of his
negotiated settlement, Brooks entered the plea in exchange for
being released on his own recognizance, and if he appeared at
the sentencing hearing, would receive concurrent four and twelve month sentences with dismissal of the PFO2 I charge.
Phillip Brooks was convicted of
second-degree robbery and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.
Following his conviction and sentencing, Phillip2 moved for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. He presented
an affidavit from his brother, Kenny Brooks, stating that it was
he (Kenny) who had been involved in the incident that gave rise
to the robbery charge.
Nannie Brown appeals from a judgment of the
Fayette Circuit Court, entered January 9, 2002, convicting her
of two counts of first-degree trafficking in a controlled
substance,1 as well as several related offenses, and sentencing
her as a first-degree persistent felony offender2 to fifteen
years in prison. Brown contends that hearsay evidence
introduced during the testimony of several police officers marred her trial and requires that her conviction be reversed.
We agree.
Billy Brown has appealed from the orders of the
Letcher Circuit Court which denied his motion for shock
probation and his motion to reconsider and motion to set for
argument. Having concluded that the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in denying Brown's motions, we affirm.
Appellant Brian Deyronneil Brown (hereinafter
appellant) appeals his conviction pursuant to a conditional
guilty plea to trafficking in a controlled substance in the
first degree and resisting arrest. Appellant contends on appeal
that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress
evidence because the arresting officer did not have reasonable
suspicion to stop him. We affirm.
Josh D. Brown brings this appeal from a
conditional guilty plea. He challenges the determination of the
circuit court that a knife which he had brought onto school
premises qualified as a deadly weapon under KRS1 527.070. We
agree that the knife at issue constituted a deadly weapon as a
matter of law. Therefore, we affirm.
Donald G. Browning has appealed from a judgment
and sentence of the McLean Circuit Court entered on January 9,
2002, which, pursuant to Donald’s conditional plea of guilty,
convicted him of three offenses and sentenced him to prison for
one year. Having concluded that the trial court correctly
denied Donald’s motion to suppress evidence, we affirm.
Robert Darrell Bryant appeals from a judgment
and sentence following a jury trial in the Floyd Circuit Court
where he was convicted of unlawful imprisonment in the first
degree, persistent felony offender in the second degree,
unlawful transaction with a minor in the third degree (as to a
second victim), and terroristic threatening (as to a third
victim).
More fallout from that wacky 1998 legislation that amended (and enlarged the group of those implicated from the 1994 enactment) of the KY Sex Offender Act. (1998, ch. 606, sec. 138). The appellant -- incarcerated prior to July 15, 1998 -- argues that the statutory language "incarcerated after July 15, 1998” means that the new legislation does not apply to him. The court again looks to the consolidated appeals in Hyatt v. Commonwealth, Ky., 72 S.W.3d 566 (2002) for the answer. Hyatt considered three appeals of people incarcerated prior to July 15, 1998 like Buckner. The court makes explicit what it sees as being implicit in Hyatt: the statutory argument fails as the Hyatt court considered appeals by defendants in Buckner's pre-July 15 shoes.
Marcus Buford (“Buford”) brings this appeal from
a June 3, 2002 judgment of the McCracken Circuit Court. We
reverse and remand.Buford was indicted on December 22, 2000, by the
McCracken County Grand Jury on two counts of first degree sexual
abuse.
Marcus Buford (“Buford”) brings this appeal from
a June 3, 2002 judgment of the McCracken Circuit Court. We
reverse and remand.Buford was indicted on December 22, 2000, by the
McCracken County Grand Jury on two counts of first degree sexual
abuse.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered by
the Henderson Circuit Court following a jury verdict convicting
appellant of complicity to first degree robbery and receiving
stolen property worth over $300.
Jimmy Bush appeals from a judgment of the Menifee
Circuit Court, entered March 8, 2002, finding him guilty of
tampering with physical evidence in violation of KRS 524.100 and
of second-degree arson in violation of KRS 513.030. The court
sentenced him to consecutive terms of imprisonment totaling
fifteen years. Bush contends that the trial court violated his
constitutional and statutory rights to a speedy trial and that
the court erred by admitting gruesome pictures into evidence.
Leonard Bussell appeals
from a Christian Circuit Court order denying his Kentucky Rules of Civil
Procedure (CR) 60.02 motion without appointment of counsel and an evidentiary
hearing.
Barry Bussell appeals the Christian Circuit
Court's denial of his motion to vacate and set aside judgment
and appoint counsel under RCr1 11.42 and his supplemental motion
to the original RCr 11.42 motion.
This is an appeal by Hunter Byrd, III,
from a jury verdict convicting him of three counts of drug
trafficking and one count of drug possession. For the reasons
stated below, we affirm.
Appellant Mark Steven Byrd brings this appeal
from his conviction in the Fayette Circuit Court for trafficking
in a controlled substance in the first degree and being a
persistent felony offender in the second degree. In the trial
court, appellant announced his intention to enter a conditional
guilty plea. The Commonwealth argues against review on appeal
on the ground that appellant did not preserve issues as
necessary under RCr 8.09.
Dannie Dale Byrd II appeals from an order of the
Fayette Circuit Court denying his motion for shock probation
(KRS 439.265) without a hearing. We affirm.
Return
to the Main Table of Cases