Unpublished Court of Appeals Opinions Index |
|
|
Dad v. Com., 2002-CA-001158
-- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Dalton v. Com., 2002-CA-001652 -- Published;
Affirming -- PDF - TextDamion Dalton appeals from an order of the
Jefferson Circuit Court denying his motion for post-conviction
relief pursuant to RCr1 11.42 and CR2 60.02. In his motion
Dalton contends that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel.Dad argues that the trial court was in error when it
refused to give a tendered instruction on self defense. She
argues that the facts support the giving of such an instruction,
and asserts that the trial court must give instructions
applicable to every state of the case supported by evidence.
Dalton v. Com., 2002-CA-001587 -- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF - Text
Daniels v. Com., 2002-CA-001684 -- Not Published;
Affirmed -- PDF - Text
Davis v. Com., 2002-CA-001288
-- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Davis v. Com., 2002-CA-001297
-- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF -
Text Davis v. Com., 2001-CA-002262 -- Published;
Affirmed -- PDF - Text
Davis v. Com., 2001-CA-002262 -- Published;
Affirmed -- PDF - Text
Dawson v. Com., 2001-CA-002697
-- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Day v. Com., 2002-CA-002145
-- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Dearmond v. Com., 2002-CA-001682 -- Not Published;
Affirming in Part, Vacating in Part and Remanding -- PDF - Text
Deering v. Com., 2001-CA-002182 -- Not Published; Vacated and Remanding Dickerson v. Com., 2002-CA-000992 -- Not Published; Affirmed
-- PDF - Text Dicks v. Com., 2002-CA-001265 -- Not Published;
Vacating and Remanding -- PDF - Text
Dillard v. Com., 2002-CA-000093 -- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Dismore v. Com., 2001-CA-001771 -- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text
Dotson v. Com., 2000-CA-002076 -- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Ducret v. Com., 2001-CA-002587 -- Not Published; Affirmed.
Duff v. Com., 2002-CA-001802 -- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF - Text
Duncan v. Com., 2001-CA-000956
-- Not Published; Affirmed -- PDF - Text Dunkerson v. Com., 2002-CA-000465 -- Not Published; Affirmed
Dunn v. Com., 2002-CA-002032 -- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF - Text
Durham v. Com., 2001-CA-001696 -- Not Published; Affirmed.
Mark Steven Dalton appeals from
Martin Circuit Court’s April 26, 2002, denial of his pro se
motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Appellant Mary Ruth Daniels, who was convicted
of two counts of trafficking in a controlled substance, claims
that her due process rights were violated when the trial court
considered later offenses for which she had been indicted, but
not convicted, in imposing consecutive sentences instead of the
concurrent sentences recommended by the jury.
Eric Anthony Davis appeals from a judgment of the
McCracken Circuit Court wherein he was convicted, following a
jury trial, of second-degree assault under extreme emotional
disturbance. Davis argues that the trial court erred in not
granting his directed verdict motion. After thoroughly
reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm.
Shannon Davis appeals from an order of the
Fayette Circuit Court entered on June 7, 2002, denying his CR1
60.02/60.03 motion to vacate his 1995 judgment of conviction for
first-degree rape. Davis argues that his guilty plea upon which
his conviction was based was involuntary because it was induced
by prosecutorial misconduct.
Allan Kyle Davis has appealed from the final
judgment and sentence entered by the McLean Circuit Court on
October 11, 2001, following his conditional plea of guilty to
the charges of trafficking in a controlled substance within
1,000 yards of a school,1 possession of a controlled substance in the first degree (methamphetamine),2 possession of marijuana,3
possession of drug paraphernalia,4 and cultivation of marijuana,
five or fewer plants, while in the possession of a firearm.5
Having concluded that the trial court properly denied Davis’s
motion to suppress all of the evidence seized during the search
of his residence, we affirm.
Allan Kyle Davis has appealed from the final
judgment and sentence entered by the McLean Circuit Court on
October 11, 2001, following his conditional plea of guilty to
the charges of trafficking in a controlled substance within
1,000 yards of a school.
Appellant Robert Fitzgerald Dawson appeals his
conviction in the Fayette Circuit Court following a jury trial
for possession of a handgun by a convicted felon and carrying a
concealed deadly weapon. Appellant argues that the trial court
erred in failing to grant his motion for directed verdict
because the evidence was not sufficient to establish that he
exercised dominion and control over the weapon in this case. We
affirm.
Wilburn Day appeals from the denial
of his Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42 motion,
in which he claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to allegedly improper remarks made by the
prosecutor in his closing argument.
This is an appeal from a judgment convicting
appellant of fourth offense driving under the influence (“DUI”),
second offense operating a vehicle on a DUI suspended license,
and receiving stolen property over $300.
Randall Deering appeals from an order denying
his Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42 motion to
vacate a five-year sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to
third-degree rape. Deering argues that the circuit court should
have held an evidentiary hearing before ruling on his motion
because there are factual issues that cannot be determined from the
existing record.
Charles Dickerson brings this appeal from an
April 11, 2002, judgment of the Fulton Circuit Court. We
affirm.
On November 30, 2001, the Fulton County Grand Jury
indicted appellant upon two counts of second-degree burglary,
Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 511.030, one count of thirddegree
burglary, KRS 511.040, one count of theft by unlawful
taking of property valued more than $300.00, KRS 514.030, and two counts of third-degree criminal mischief, KRS 512.040.
Pursuant to a plea agreement with the Commonwealth, appellant
pled guilty to two counts of third-degree criminal mischief, one
count of third-degree burglary, and two counts of second-degree
burglary.
Bobby Ray Dicks (hereinafter appellant)
appeals his conviction in the Warren Circuit Court for two
counts of assault in the first degree, operating a motor vehicle
while under the influence of intoxicants, and operating on a
suspended license. Appellant was sentenced to eighteen years
imprisonment. On appeal, appellant raises various claims of
error. We agree that there was error in the trial of this case,
and so we vacate the conviction and remand for retrial.
This is an appeal from an order denying
appellant's CR 60.02 motion alleging double jeopardy and that he
was wrongfully indicted for being a persistent felony offender
(PFO). Since appellant's arguments could have been raised in
his direct appeal or in his previous RCr 11.42 motion, the
motion was properly denied. Hence, we affirm.
Steven Lee Dismore appeals from an order
denying his Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42 motion
to vacate, set aside or correct his judgment and sentence.
Following a jury trial, Dismore was convicted of murder1
and of being a first degree persistent felony offender.
On September 26, 1999, Steve Akers discovered a
partially decomposed human corpse on an undeveloped hill in the
Cedar Creek area just outside Pikeville in Pike County. An
autopsy revealed that the body was that of Chad Ratliff, who had
been reported missing about a week earlier. The autopsy also
revealed that Ratliff had died from a gunshot wound to the head.
Tommy Dotson and Curtis Murphy were charged with Ratliff’s
murder.
Following a grand jury indictment, appellant pled to theft by
unlawful taking over $300.00, and to being a persistent felony
offender in the first degree. The PFO indictment was previously dismissed but not designated by the court as with or without prejudice. His plea was subsequent to the prosecutor's re-indictment on the PFO charge. Appellant challenges the re-indictment. After a patronizing prefatory paragraph that deems the fact that a conditional plea was not entered means the issue wasn't preserved, the court then says it will go ahead and review on the merits. They quote liberally from Price v. Commonwealth, Ky., 666 S.W.2d 749 (1984) to conclude that the PFO charged was only able to be dismissed without prejudice.
On June 21, 2001, Sam Duff shot and killed
his wife. There were eyewitnesses to the shooting, and Duff’s
defense at trial was that he was guilty of manslaughter and not
murder due to his mental state at the time. The jury convicted
Duff of first-degree manslaughter, and he was sentenced to 19½
years in prison.1 His direct appeal to this court followed.
Duncan was convicted by a jury in 1991
of one count of first-degree sodomy and two
counts of first-degree sexual abuse against
his minor step-children. He was sentenced
to a total of 50 years imprisonment, and the
Supreme Court of Kentucky denied any relief
on his direct appeal. This is a pro se appeal from a judgment entered
by the Bell Circuit Court which overruled appellant’s CR 60.02
motion for relief. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Appellant challenges the revocation of his conditional discharge for failure to attend Sex Offender Treatment Program, among other things, that was part of the conditions of his release. He had a car, but no insurance or valid driver's license. The court says that he should have worked with his parole officer to figure out transportation.
John Randall Dunn has appealed from a final
judgment and sentence entered by the Fayette Circuit Court on
October 2, 2002, following his conditional guilty plea. Having
concluded that the trial court did not err by denying Dunn’s
motion to suppress evidence of a prior conviction from Ohio, we
affirm.
Durham appeals the denial of a motion to suppress which led to a conditional guilty plea to the charges of tampering with anhydrous ammonia equipment and possession of marijuana. The court holds that the issue was not preserved because of the failure to put it in writing pursuant to RCr 8.09. (Cites Toppass v. Commonwealth, Ky. App., 80 S.W.3d 795, 798 (2002).) The court is not persuaded that manifest injustice is done in response to appellant's RCr 10.26 claim.