Connie Baker appeals pro se from the circuit court’s denial of his third collateral attack upon his plea of guilty to the crimes of murder, attempted murder, first-degree robbery, first-degree criminal conspiracy to commit burglary, and being a first-degree persistent felony offender.
Baker V Com, 2003-CA-001259-MR-- Not Published;
2003-CA-000855-MR Affirming-MR -- PDF
Baraka v. Com., 2003-CA-000454-- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Barbour v. Com., 2002-CA-002595-- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Barnett v. Com., 2003-CA-000514-- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Barnett v Com, 2004-CA-000170 -- Not To Be Published;
Affirming -- PDF Bates v Com., 2003-CA-001668-MR -- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Beckham V Com, 2003-CA-002111-MR--Not To Be Published;
2003-CA-000855-MR Affirming -MR -- PDF
Bennett v Com, 2002-CA-002574 -- Not To Be Published;
Affirming-- PDF
Bennett V Com, 2003-CA-002224--Not To Be Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Bentley V Com, 2003-CA-001130--Not To Be Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Berke V Com, 2003-CA-001951--Not To Be Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Berry v. Com, 2002-CA-000163 -- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Biedenharn V Com, 2003-CA-001590 --Not To Be Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Billingsley and Tilley v. Com., 2002-CA-001879- To Be Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Black V Com, 2003-CA-000654 --To Be Published;
Reversing And Remanding -- PDF -
Bledsoe v. Com, 2002-CA-002132-MR-- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Boggs V Com, 2003-CA-001518--Not To Be Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Boone v. Com., 2003-CA-000042- To Be Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Bonner v. Com, 2002-CA-002037-MR -- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Bowles v. Com, 2003-CA-001127 -- Not Published;
Reversing and Remanding -- PDF
Bowlin v. Com., 2002-CA-000249 Not Published;
Reversing and Remanding -- PDF
Boykin v. Com., 2001-CA-002658- Not To Be Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Braden v. Com., 2002-CA-002152 -- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Branscum V Com, 2003-CA-002764--Not To Be Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Brearton v Com, 2004-CA-000209 -- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF Brent v. Com., 2002-CA-001057-- Not Published;
Affirming in Part, Vacating and Remanding in Part -- PDF
Brewer v Com, 2003-CA-000168 -- Not Published;
Affirming-- PDF
Brewer V Com, 2003-CA-001418-MR-- Not Published;
2003-CA-000855-MR Affirming-MR -- PDF
Brooks v Com., 2002-CA-002602 -- Not Published;
Affirming-- PDF
Brown v. Com., 2002-CA-001701 Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Brown v. Com., 2002-CA-001370 -- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Brown V Com, 2003-CA-001195-MR-- Not Published;
2003-CA-000855-MR Reversing and Remanding -MR -- PDF
Brown v Com, /2004-CA-000704-MR Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF
Brown v Com, 2003-CA-000292 -- Not To Be Published;
Affirming -- PDF Brown v. Com, 2003-CA-000948 -- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF Brown v Com, 2004-CA-000320 -- Not To Be Published;
Affirming -- PDF Bruce V Com , 2003-CA-001814-MR-- Not Published;
2003-CA-000855-MR Affirming -- PDF
Bryant v. Com., 2001-CA-001418 Not Published;
Affirming In Part, Vacating And Remanding In Part -- PDF
Burden V Com, /2003-CA-002293-MR Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF
Burkhart v. Com, 2002-CA-002495-MR -- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Burkhead V Com, 2002-CA-001394 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming-- PDF Burney V Com,2003-CA-002658- Not To Be Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Burns v. Com., 2003-CA-000005 -- Not Published;
Affirming In Part And Reversing And Remanding In Part -- PDF
Burns V Com, 2003-CA-001219--Nit To Be Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Bush v Com., 2003-CA-000694-MR -- Not Published;
Affirming --- PDF
Butler v. Com., 2003-CA-001182-- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Buttrey v. Com, 2002-CA-000343-MR -- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Butts v. Com., 2003-CA-001015-- Not Published;
Reversing and Remanding -- PDF
B.W. V Com, 2003-CA-001252--Not To Be Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Robert L. Baker brings this appeal from a May
20, 2003, Final Judgment and Sentence of Imprisonment of the
Fayette Circuit Court. We affirm.
Appellant was indicted by the Fayette County Grand
Jury on the offenses of flagrant non-support (Kentucky Revised
Statutes (KRS) 530.050) and with being a persistent felony
offender in the second degree (PFO II)(KRS 532.080).
Binta Baraka appeals her conviction for
manslaughter in the second degree2 and for being a persistent
felony offender in the second degree3 for which she received a
ten-year sentence on a conditional plea.
Appellant Nathaniel Barbour brings this appeal
from a judgment of the Hardin County Circuit Court convicting
him of trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree
and being a persistent felony offender in the second degree.
The main issue for our review is whether the trial court erred
in denying the appellant a continuance of his jury trial date.
For the reasons stated hereafter, we affirm.
Eric Jerome Barnett, Sr., was convicted
of possession of a controlled substance, first degree, and
sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, probated for a period of
three years.
Four
years post-judgment, Barnett brought a motion in the trial court
to amend his PSI. The court denied the motion and Barnett
appealed. We believe Barnett’s motion was untimely; therefore,
the circuit court properly denied it. We affirm.
Robert Bates was convicted of escape in
the second degree and being a persistent felony offender in the
second degree. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial
court erroneously failed to give a duress instruction. We find
that the evidence did not warrant the instruction and affirm.
Michael Dewayne Beckham (“Beckham”) appeals
from a judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court on a conditional
plea of guilty to one count each of operating a motor vehicle
under the influence, fourth offense, and operating on a
suspended license. He argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant a motion to suppress. For the reasons stated
herein, we affirm the judgment.
David A. Bennett appeals his conviction in Todd
Circuit Court following a conditional guilty plea to the charges
Possession of controlled substance in first degree
(KRS 218A.1415), Possession of drug paraphernalia in first
offense (KRS 218A.500(2)), and Facilitation to manufacturing
methamphetamine (KRS 506.060 and KRS 218A.1432). Bennett argues
on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion to
suppress evidence obtained in a warranted search of his residence.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether
the trial judge erred in denying appellant’s motion for relief
(filed pursuant to RCr1 11.42) without appointing counsel or
conducting an evidentiary hearing. We agree that the trial
judge correctly determined that the allegations set forth in the
motion had been waived by the entry of an unconditional plea of guilt to the underlying charges. Therefore, we affirm the
denial of relief in this case.
Appellant, Billy Joe Bentley (Bentley), appeals
the denial of his RCr. 11.42 motion to vacate his twenty year
conviction for wanton murder. Bentley claims that defense
counsel had a conflict of interest that resulted in ineffective
assistance of counsel.
Bentley was charged with shooting Ricky Dale Elswick
as he attempted to get into Bentley’s vehicle.
Roger Alan Berke has appealed from the
final judgment and sentence of imprisonment entered by the
Christian Circuit Court on September 4, 2003, which convicted
him of tampering with physical evidence. We affirm.
Bennie P. Berry (Berry) appeals the Jefferson
Circuit Court’s denial of his RCr 11.42 motion alleging
ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no error, we affirm.In April of 1995, Berry entered a guilty plea to
multiple charges from indictment numbers: 94-CR-000220
(possession of controlled substance cocaine); 94-CR-000722
(criminal trespass, first degree); 94-CR-002685 (assault underextreme emotional disturbance; resisting arrest and attempting
to elude) and 95-CR-000434 (reckless driving; attempting to
elude; resisting arrest; receiving stolen property under $300;
two counts of wanton endangerment, second degree and operating a
motor vehicle without operator’s license). Berry was sentenced
to a total of seven years, probated for five years.
Appellant, David Biedenharn, appeals the
judgment of the Campbell Circuit Court sentencing him to two (2)
years imprisonment, probated for a period of five (5) years. On
May 28, 2003, the jury returned a verdict finding appellant
guilty of first degree sexual abuse of eight year old, K.B. For
the reasons stated hereafter, we affirm.
This is an appeal by a judge of the Carroll
District Court from a writ of prohibition entered by the Carroll
Circuit Court. The writ prohibited the district judge,
appellant, Stanley M. Billingsley, from enforcing an order
suppressing the introduction of the Breathalyzer (“BA”) test performed on the real party in interest, Gary Tilley. For the
reasons stated hereafter, we affirm..
John W. Black brings this appeal from a March
11, 2003, judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court. We reverse and
remand.
On October 22, 2002, the Lexington police department
received an anonymous tip that a black male, wearing a blue jean
jacket and blue jeans, was riding a purple bicycle and selling
narcotics across from a Speedway store located at the corner of
Georgetown Street and Glenn Arvin.
Ernest Bledsoe appeals from the judgment of the
Powell Circuit Court, entered on a jury verdict finding him
guilty of manslaughter in the first degree, for which he was
sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. Bledsoe argues on appeal
that the circuit court erred by failing to dismiss the
indictment because the Commonwealth did not make an audio or
stenographic recording of the Commonwealth's Attorney's
presentation of the defendant's request to testify to the grand
jury.
Appellant, April Boggs (Boggs), appeals the
denial of a motion for directed verdict and her conviction in
her trial for criminal facilitation to commit murder, criminal
facilitation to first degree burglary, and complicity to
trafficking in marijuana. We affirm the trial court’s ruling
and judgment.
April Boggs was charged with criminal facilitation of
a burglary and two murders committed by her husband Jerome. At
trial the prosecution alleged that Boggs had driven Jerome Boggs to the residence of Timothy Cook.
Donald Sid Boone appeals from a judgment of
conviction confirming a jury verdict finding him guilty of
first-degree sexual abuse. He argues that the trial court erred
by failing to grant a mistrial after a police officer commented
on his invocation of his right to remain silent. Boone also
contends that the trial court erred by failing to grant his
motions for a directed verdict and for probation of his
sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.
Wendell Bonner appeals from a judgment and
sentence on a plea of guilty that adjudged him guilty of sodomy
in the second degree and incest. Bonner challenges the trial
court’s designation of him as an “eligible sexual offender”
under Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 197.410, and refusal to
conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether he was mentally retarded, and thereby not subject to classification as
an eligible sexual offender. We affirm.
Edward T. Bowles appeals from an opinion and
judgment entered by the Christian Circuit Court denying his RCr
11.42 motion. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
Bowles was convicted of murder following a trial by
jury. The judgment and sentence on plea of not guilty adjudging Bowles guilty of murder and sentencing him to life in prison was
entered on October 4, 1996. Thereafter, his conviction was
affirmed by the Supreme Court of Kentucky in a not-to-bepublished
memorandum opinion of the court rendered April 16,
1998.2 On May 27, 1998, Bowles filed a pro se motion to vacate
judgment pursuant to RCr 11.42. While his RCr 11.42 motion was
pending, his trial attorney, Joel R. Embry was indicted on
several criminal charges.
Appellant, Jimmy Bowlin (Bowlin), files a direct
appeal of his conviction. We reverse the conviction below.
Bowlin was indicted for terroristic threatening,
wanton endangerment, possession of drug paraphernalia, drug
possession and cruelty to animals following Bowlin’s having
repeatedly discharged his SKS rifle near his trailer.
The Appellant, Terrance Boykin (Boykin),
appeals from an order of the Hickman Circuit Court denying his
motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Kentucky Rules of
Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42. Boykin contends that he
received ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with
his trial on charges of conspiracy to commit murder and six
counts of wanton endangerment, and in his direct appeal
following his conviction of the charges, because counsel represented both him and a codefendant and, as such, was
laboring under a conflict of interest which resulted in
deficient and prejudicial representation. For the reasons
stated below we affirm.
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, on
March 20, 2000, Clinton D. Braden appeared before the Jefferson
Circuit Court and entered a guilty plea to: (1) two counts of
fraudulent use of a credit card; (2) theft or receipt of a
stolen credit card; (3) criminal possession of a forged
instrument in the second degree; (4) disorderly conduct; (5)
resisting arrest; (6) alcohol intoxication; and, (7) persistent
felony offender, second degree.
Jerry Branscum appeals from an order of the
Pulaski Circuit Court denying his motion to correct an alleged
sentencing error. Branscum argues that the thirty year
sentence, which he accepted as part of a plea bargain to several
sexual offenses, exceeds the maximum sentence of twenty years’
imprisonment allowed by law. The trial court declined to
address the merits of his contention because Branscum has
already raised this exact issue in two previous motions.
Michael Brearton appeals from a judgment of
the Kenton Circuit Court convicting him of first-degree robbery.
He argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that
he was armed with a deadly weapon -– an element of the crime
(see KRS 1 515.020) -- and that the trial court erred in failing
to instruct the jury on theft by unlawful taking. Finding no
error, we affirm.
Gregory Brent (Brent) appeals from the
judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court convicting him of
possession of a controlled substance, first degree and being a
persistent felony offender, second degree.
Darrell Brewer appeals from a judgment of the
Montgomery Circuit Court, entered January 14, 2003, convicting
him of second-degree manslaughter in violation of KRS 507.040
and sentencing him to five years’ imprisonment. Brewer contends
that the trial court erred by denying his motions for a directed
verdict. We affirm.
Kenneth R. Brewer has appealed from the final
judgment and sentence entered by the Fayette Circuit Court on
June 4, 2003, finding him guilty pursuant to a jury verdict of
robbery in the second degree,1 possession of a controlled
substance in the third degree,2 and as being a persistent felony
offender in the first degree (PFO I).3 Having concluded that any error committed by the trial court by allowing inadmissible
testimony was not preserved for appellate review and does not
rise to the level of palpable error, we affirm.
Rodrix Brooks (hereinafter appellant) was
convicted in the Barren Circuit Court of three counts of
trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree. He
was sentenced to five years on each count, for a total sentence
of fifteen years’ imprisonment.
J. L. Brown appeals from an order of the Fulton
Circuit Court revoking his probation for violating its terms by
committing other offenses and failing to comply with the terms
of his probation order. The order also imposed the five-year
sentence of imprisonment received by Brown in association with
his guilty plea to the underlying offense, second-degree
possession of a forged instrument.
Cornelius Charles Brown appeals from a judgment
of the Fayette Circuit Court, entered May 22, 2002, which
convicted him of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon,
carrying a concealed deadly weapon, and being a second-degree
persistent felony offender.
Lamont Houston Brown has appealed from a
final judgment and sentence of the Fayette Circuit Court entered
on May 15, 2003, which followed his conditional guilty pleas to
charges of trafficking in a controlled substance in the first
degree, tampering with physical evidence, and being a persistent
felony offender in the first degree (PFO I).
Dale Louis Brown appeals from findings of
fact, conclusions of law and judgment of the LaRue Circuit Court
denying his motion for relief from judgment pursuant to CR
60.02(f) and RCr 10.26. Brown raises numerous claims in support
of his contention that the trial court erred in refusing to
vacate his conviction and sentence. For the reasons stated
herein, we affirm the order on appeal.
Karlos Brown (Brown) appeals his conviction
for possession of a controlled substance (cocaine), driving
without a valid license,3 and persistent felony offender (PFO) first degree 4 for which he was sentenced to eighteen years.
Brown contends the court erred in allowing defense counsel to
step outside the courtroom when the appellant testified and when
he gave his closing argument. Because an attorney may not
ethically assist in presenting false testimony, nor argue false
facts in his closing, the court did not err. Also, the right to
testify does not include the right to testify falsely; therefore
appellant waives his right to counsel for that part of the trial
where he proceeds against his counsel’s advice.
Mark Edmond Brown brings this appeal from
an April 2, 2003, final judgment and sentence of imprisonment of
the Fayette Circuit Court. We affirm.
Carl Brown appeals from a judgment of the
Muhlenberg Circuit Court reflecting Brown’s conditional plea of
guilty to six counts of drug trafficking, possession of drug
paraphernalia and firearms offenses. Under the terms of the
guilty plea, Brown reserved the right to appeal the circuit
court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained
during a search of his residence. Brown contends that though he
consented to the search, the consent was coerced and therefore
involuntary. For the reasons stated below, we are not persuaded.
William Jacob Bruce (“Bruce”) appeals from an
order of the Hopkins Circuit Court, entered June 9, 2003, that
denied his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02. Bruce also
appeals from an order entered June 19, 2003, wherein the trial
court denied his motion to alter, amend or vacate the June 9,
2003 order denying his CR 60.02 motion. We affirm.
David Earl Bryant (Bryant) appeals the Todd
Circuit Court’s denial of jail credit for time that Bryant
served on a charge that was ultimately dismissed and on the
underlying charge prior to entering a plea of guilty; and
further, that the Court erred by raising Defendant’s bond on the
underlying charge without proper notice.
In September of 2003 Robert K. Burden entered
a conditional guilty plea to the charges of manufacturing
methamphetamine and trafficking in a controlled substance in the
first degree, reserving his right to appeal the Grayson Circuit
Court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Burden contends that
law enforcement officers lacked probable cause to enter his
property and argues that the officer’s search and seizure of his
garbage was unconstitutional.
This is an appeal from the Marion Circuit
Court’s judgment and sentence on appellant James Burkhart’s
conditional guilty plea to escape in the second-degree.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in not granting
his motion to dismiss for failure to conduct a trial within 180
days pursuant to KRS 500.110.
Appellant Thomas Ray Burkhead (hereinafter
“Burkhead”), appeals his conviction of wanton first degree
assault. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
William Burney appeals pro se from an order
entered by the Kenton Circuit Court denying his motion for
declaratory relief. Burney asserts that the trial court erred
by failing to declare that he shall not be classified as a
violent offender since the final judgment did not state that the
victim suffered death or serious physical injury. However, as
Burney pled guilty to multiple offenses including first-degree.
Roy D. Burns brings this pro se appeal from the
December 6, 2002 orders of the Laurel Circuit Court. We affirm
in part and reverse and remand in part.
On December 17, 1999, appellant, Roy D. Burns, was
indicted by a Laurel County Grand Jury of three (3) counts of
trafficking in methamphetamine and being a persistent felony
offender in the first degree.
Eric Burns appeals from an order of the
Christian Circuit Court denying his motion for relief (filed
pursuant to CR1 60.02) from a judgment of conviction. After our
review of the record, we find no error. Thus, we affirm.
James Robert Bush appeals from a jury verdict
convicting him of two counts of first-degree promoting
contraband. Bush contends that he was entitled to a directed
verdict because there was insufficient evidence to convict him
of the charges. For the reasons herein stated, we affirm.
Raymond Bernard Butler appeals, pro se, from an
order of the Laurel Circuit Court, entered on October 10, 2002,
that denied his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the
judgment and sentence, pursuant to RCr 10.26, RCr 11.42,
CR 0.02(f)/60.03. As grounds for his motion, Butler claimed
that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel on his
guilty pleas because his attorneys had failed to advise him of
the possible defense of extreme emotional disturbance (EED).
This appeal is from a judgment entered by the
Knott Circuit Court after a jury found appellant, Delbert
Buttrey,1 guilty of unlawful imprisonment first degree and wanton
endangerment first degree. The trial court sentenced appellant
in conformity with the jury’s ten year recommendation. We
affirm.
Kenneth Butts appeals from an order of the
Fayette Circuit Court of April 30, 2003, which denied his motion
pursuant to CR1 60.02. Having concluded that the trial court
erred as a matter of law in denying his motion, we reverse and
remand.
B.W. appeals pro se from an order of the Warren
Circuit Court entered on May 19, 2003, denying his motion to
vacate judgment or for reduction of sentence filed pursuant to
CR2 60.02(f), and his motion for a new trial filed pursuant to RCr3 10.06 and RCr 10.26. Having concluded that the trial court
did not err in denying the motions, we affirm..
Return
to the Main Table of Cases