2004 Unpublished Court of Appeals Opinions Index |
|
|
Use Adobe's Conversion Tool to convert the following PDF files into text in the event that you are viewing this page with assistive technology that is not compatible.
Earlywine v. Com, 2002-CA-002449 --Not To Be Published;
Affirming In Part, Vacating In Part And Remanding -- PDF
Ebach v. Com., 2003-CA-000856-Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Edmontson v. Com., 2002-CA-001967 -- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Edwards V Com, 2003-CA-001298--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF
Egner V Com, 2003-CA-001046--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF
Elkins V Com, 2003-CA-001642--Not To Be Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Embry v. Com., 2003-CA-000071 -- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Embry V Com, 2003-CA-001349--Not To Be Published;
Reversing And Remanding -- PDF
William Earlywine appeals following the denial
of his motion for relief under Kentucky Rules of Criminal
Procedure (RCr) 11.42 without an evidentiary hearing. The
circuit court held that Earlywine’s allegations of error were
either refuted by the record or not properly the subject of a
motion for relief under RCr 11.42..
Roger Ebach appeals from a judgment of the
Monroe Circuit Court sentencing him to seven years in prison.
He argues that the court erred in denying his motion to withdraw
his guilty plea. We affirm.
Brothers Steve and Richard Edwards appeal from
separate judgments of the Green Circuit Court, entered August
10, 2003, convicting them, following their joint trial, of
cultivating five or more marijuana plants,1 of trafficking inmarijuana,2 and of possessing drug paraphernalia.3 Steve was
sentenced to two years in prison, Richard to one year. They
contend that the trial court erred by refusing to suppress
evidence seized from their Green County farm, by refusing them a
continuance when a co-defendant changed his plea and agreed to
testify for the Commonwealth, and by denying their motions to
dismiss the charge of cultivating five or more plants. We
affirm.
Appellant, Scott Egner (“Egner”), appeals from
an order of the Laurel Circuit Court entered on April 18, 2003,
in which the trial court revoked his conditional discharge.
On appeal, Egner argues that the trial court abused
its discretion when it revoked his conditional discharge since
his First Amendment right to freedom of religion was violated by
the mission house at which he agreed to stay.
Elkins V Com, 2003-CA-001569-- To Be Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Scottie Elkins appeals from a judgment of the
Laurel Circuit Court sentencing him to seven years following his
plea of guilty to criminal attempt to manufacture
methamphetamine. We affirm.
Willie Elkins (hereinafter appellant) appeals
the order of the Pike Circuit Court which denied his motion to
withdraw his guilty plea. Appellant alleges that the plea
agreement was breached by the Commonwealth’s presentation of
evidence at sentencing in spite of the Commonwealth’s agreement
not to oppose probation. Appellant states that justice requires
that he be allowed to withdraw his plea. We have reviewed the record surrounding the plea1 and we affirm the decision of the
court to deny the motion to withdraw.
Jason Embry appeals from a judgment entered by
the Kenton Circuit Court on a conditional plea of guilty to
flagrant non-support, for which he was sentenced to five years’
imprisonment, probated for five years. He claims on appeal that
the trial court erred in refusing to dismiss the indictment
because no trial was held within 180 days of his demand for a
speedy trial under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD).
Pursuant to a conditional guilty plea, Mark
Aaron Embry (hereinafter “Embry”) has appealed from the Daviess
Circuit Court’s April 18, 2003, order denying his motion to
suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search of his
automobile. Having considered the parties’ briefs, the record
and the applicable case law, we must reverse and remand.
Return
to the Main Table of Cases