David Wayne Parks (“Parks”) appeals from an order of the Knox Circuit Court denying his motion for RCr 60.02 relief. Parks argued below that his plea of guilty to criminal charges was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and that he was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the order on appeal.
Parrish v. Com., 2003-CA-000688-- Not Published;
Reversing and Remanding -- PDF
Partin V Com, ,2003-CA-001999--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF
Patterson v. Com, 2003-CA-000984 --Not To Be Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Patton V Com, 2003-CA-001581--Not To Be Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Payne v. Com., 2002-CA-002547-- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Payne v. Com., 2003-CA-000380 -- Not Published;
Affirming-- PDF
Payne v Com, 2003-CA-000865-MR--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF
Peake v Com, 2003-CA-000713-- Not To Be Published;
Affirming-- PDF
Pendleton v. Com., 1999-CA-002243 Not Published;
Affirming in Part, Vacating in Part and Remanding -- PDF Perkins v. Com, 2003-CA-000462-MR-- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Perry V Com, 2003-CA-000195 --Not To Be Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Petrey V Com, 2003-CA-000265 --Not To Be Published;
Affirming In Part Reversing In Part -- PDF
Phillips v. Com., 2002-CA-001533 -- Not Published;
Affirming-- PDF
Phillips v. Com., 2003-CA-000280-- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Phillips v Com, 2003-CA-000359-MR--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF
Pinkston v. Com, 2001-CA-002552 -- Not Published;
Affirming In Part and Reversing In Part -- PDF
Plouvier V Com, 2003-CA-001510-MR-- Not Published;
2003-CA-000855-MR Affirming -- PDF
Powell v. Com., 2003-CA-001646-- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Powell v Com, 2003-CA-002440 -- Not Published;
Vacating and Remanding -- PDF Powers v. Com., 2003-CA-000005-- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Pratt v Com v Taylor v Com, 2003-CA-001916-- To Be Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Puckett v. Com., 2002-CA-001848 & 2002-CA-001871 & 2002-CA-001872-- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Putty v. Com., 2002-CA-000501 -- Not Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Following the entry of a conditional guilty
plea, Calvin Parrish appeals the denial by the circuit court of
his motion to suppress an identification of him as the
perpetrator of a robbery, which he alleges was the result of an
unduly suggestive show-up identification procedure.
David Partin was convicted of three
counts of first-degree wanton endangerment, resisting arrest,
disorderly conduct, possession of marijuana, carrying a
concealed deadly weapon, and operating a motor vehicle while
under the influence for which he was sentenced to a total of
four years’ imprisonment. He challenges the judgment convicting him of those offenses alleging:
Shortly after midnight on July 15, 2002, Kenneth
Patterson drove an eighteen-wheeler through a guardrail on an
entrance ramp to I-65 in Hart County, Kentucky. Patterson was
still behind the wheel of the truck when the police arrived. He
smelled strongly of alcohol and admitted to drinking a few beers
earlier that evening. Patterson refused to give a breath or
urine sample to test for alcohol or drugs. He was placed under
arrest, and the cab of his vehicle was searched.
Andre Patton appeals from an order of the Fulton
Circuit Court denying his motion to enforce his plea agreement
with the Commonwealth by reducing his conviction for firstdegree
persistent felony offender to second-degree persistent
felony offender. We affirm, but for reasons different from
those of the circuit judge.
William Thomas Payne appeals from a judgment of
the Daviess Circuit Court, entered December 5, 2002, wherein he
was convicted of kidnapping and sentenced to ten years’
imprisonment. We affirm.
Thomas Payne appeals from two opinions and
orders of the Jefferson Circuit Court: one entered on
November 7, 2002, which denied his motion for relief pursuant to
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02, and one entered on
January 2, 2003, which denied his motion to alter, amend, or
vacate the November 7, 2002, opinion and order pursuant to
CR 59.05.
This is an appeal from the denial of
appellant’s motion for RCr2 11.42 relief from a judgment entered
pursuant to a guilty plea in 1992. Although the trial court
appointed counsel and conducted an evidentiary hearing prior to
denying appellant’s motion, we have concluded that this avenue of relief is procedurally foreclosed by the time limitations of
the rule itself. We therefore affirm the denial of relief.
Stephon Peake brings this appeal from a March
27, 2003, judgment of the Campbell Circuit Court. We affirm.
On July 4, 2002, Newport City Police Officer Ronnie
Gross stopped a vehicle because the light above the rear license
plate was not illuminated in violation of Kentucky Revised
Statutes (KRS) 186.170. Appellant occupied the front passenger
seat of the car. After speaking with both the driver and
appellant, the officer requested and received consent from the
-2-
driver/owner to search the automobile
Pendleton pleaded guilty to one count of first degree
rape in 1992, and was sentenced to serve ten years. He was
scheduled for release on August 1, 1999. Pursuant to KRS 17.500,
et seq., a risk assessment hearing was held. At the hearing, the
Commonwealth presented a sex offender risk assessment report. (RCr) 13.04 and Ky. R. Civ. P. (CR) 60.02 and CR
60.03.
James Perkins appeals from a judgment of the
Warren Circuit Court, entered February 3, 2003, denying his
motion to vacate judgment filed pursuant to RCr 11.42. We
affirm.
On August 26, 1997, a jury convicted Perkins of
murdering James Asher after finding that Perkins shot Asher in
the head with a handgun.
Darrell F. Perry (hereinafter “Perry”)
appeals from the denial of his CR 60.02 motion alleging
prosecutorial misconduct. We affirm.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered by
the Harlan Circuit Court after a jury found appellant James
Michael Petrey guilty of burglary in the first degree, wanton
endangerment in the first and second degrees, two counts of
menacing, stalking in the second degree, and assault in the
second degree.
William Joseph Phillips has appealed from an
opinion and judgment entered by the Muhlenberg Circuit Court on
July 3, 2002, which denied his pro se motion to vacate, set
aside or correct sentence filed pursuant to RCr 1 11.42, without
an evidentiary hearing..
Appellant, William Joseph Phillips, appeals pro
se from the Muhlenberg Circuit Court’s Order denying his RCr
11.42 motion. Upon a full review of the matter, we affirm.
Bobby Phillips has appealed from a judgment of
conviction and sentence entered by the Clinton Circuit Court on
January 21, 2003, finding him guilty of robbery in the first
degree1 and sentencing him to prison for 17 1/2 years. Having
concluded that the error in the admission of evidence of
Phillips’s prior criminal record during the sentencing phase of
the trial was not properly preserved for appellate review and that the error did not rise to the level of palpable error, we
affirm.
This was originally an appeal from a judgment
convicting appellant of first-degree fleeing or evading police,
second offense driving under the influence (“DUI”), and first-degree
wanton endangerment. Appellant argued that convicting
him of all three offenses constituted double jeopardy under
Section 13 (the “Double Jeopardy Clause”) of the Kentucky
Constitution and KRS 505.020.
Charles Plouvier appeals from an order of the
Nelson Circuit Court denying his motion for post-conviction
relief filed pursuant to CR 60.02. We affirm.
On September 15, 1995, Plouvier was convicted of
receiving stolen property over $300.00 and of being a persistent
felony offender in the first degree.
On December 5, 1995, Powell pled guilty in Caldwell
Circuit Court to the charge of second-degree burglary. On
February 6, 1996, he received a sentence of 10 years in prison.
In October 2001, Robert Powell killed his wife,
Pamela, a Jefferson County Police Officer, by shooting her in
the head with her police handgun. The shooting occurred at the
couple’s Oldham County residence. That same month the Oldham
County grand jury indicted Powell for murder. Initially Powell
denied any involvement and claimed that Pamela had committed
suicide. But in April 2002, a few days before trial was scheduled to begin, Powell entered an open guilty plea to the
murder charge. He contends that his guilty plea
should be vacated because it was based on the ineffective
assistance of trial counsel. Convinced that Powell is entitled
to an evidentiary hearing on his claim, we must vacate the trial
court’s order and remand for additional proceedings.
Appellant, Christian Lamont Powers (Powers),
appeals his conviction of forgery, a class D felony, and of
being a persistent felony offender in the second degree.
Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the Fayette Circuit
Court.
In their respective cases, Brandon Pratt and
Aaron C. Taylor appeal from the Grant Circuit Court’s orders
denying their motions to suppress evidence obtained in an
automobile search. Following a traffic stop, police seized a
large quantity of marijuana, drug paraphernalia and a handgun
from Pratt’s automobile. Both Pratt, the driver, and Taylor,
the passenger, contend that police did not have a reasonable and
articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot to further detain them. Having determined that police met the
necessary standard, we affirm.
Jonathan D. Puckett was charged as follows:
Green Circuit Court indictment No. 00-CR-005, returned February
9, 2000, Unlawful Transaction with a Minor, 2d Degree, offense
date February 5, 2000; Taylor Circuit Court indictment No. 00-
CR-86, returned May 2, 2000, Burglary, 3d Degree, offense date
February 10, 2000; and Green Circuit Court indictment No. 00-CR-
31, returned July 5, 2000, Receiving Stolen Property, value more
than $300.00, offense date February 10, 2000.
Bernard Keith Putty appeals pro se from the
circuit court’s order that denied his motion for relief under
Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42. The substance
of his RCr 11.42 claim is that his trial counsel was
constitutionally ineffective by failing to move for a change of
venue or to request individual voir dire of prospective jurors in light of their possible exposure to prejudicial pretrial
publicity and heightened security at trial. He also argues on
appeal that the circuit court erred by failing to hold an
evidentiary hearing on his RCr 11.42 motion. We affirm the
trial court.
Return
to the Main Table of Cases