Howard Ralston appeals from an opinion and order of the Jefferson Circuit Court entered on January 21, 2003, which denied his RCr 11.42 motion for relief on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding that the trial court did not err when it denied Ralston’s RCr 11.42 motion, this court affirms.

Ramage V Com, 2003-CA-000608-MR-- Not Published; 2003-CA-000855-MR Affirming-MR -- PDF

Ricky Lee Ramage appeals pro se from an order of the McCracken Circuit Court which denied his motion to vacate judgment and sentence pursuant to RCr2 11.42. Ramage contends that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel when he entered his plea of guilty because of a conflict of interest on the part of the attorney who represented him at that stage in the proceedings. Our review of the record reveals that Ramage has not demonstrated an actual conflict of interest. Therefore, we affirm.

Ramsey v Com, 2002-CA-001860-- Not To Be Published; Affirming-- PDF

These consolidated appeals stem from the denial of Ramsey’s motions for relief pursuant to RCr 11.42 and CR 60.02 from a 1999 judgment convicting him of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon and of being a persistent felon in the first degree. Our review of the record in light of the arguments presented discloses no error on the part of the trial court and we therefore affirm the denial of relief in each appeal.

Rebollar v. Com., 2003-CA-000965-- Not Published; Affirming -- PDF

Jose Santana Rebollar appeals from the judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court, entered on a conditional guilty plea to criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first degree. Appellant entered the plea after the court denied his motion to suppress a confession, which he claimed was not voluntary because he did not understand his right to remain silent.

Reeves V Com, 2003-CA-000871-MR-- Not Published; 2003-CA-000855-MR Affirming-MR -- PDF

Appellant, Tommy Jo Reeves, appeals from a final judgment and sentence of the Kenton County Circuit Court following appellant’s conditional guilty plea for failing to register/comply as a sex offender.1 For the reasons stated hereafter, we affirm.

Rhodes v. Com., 2002-CA-002608-- Not Published; Affirming -- PDF

On November 1, 2000, Dewayne Rhodes encountered a road block at the intersection of Clay and Jacob Streets in Louisville, Kentucky. Rather than stop, Rhodes continued to drive on in spite of vigorous hand and flash light gestures from Officer Charles Jones.

Richards V Com, 2002-CA-002138 --Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Scotty Richards appeals from the judgment of the Greenup Circuit Court convicting him of second-degree rape and sentencing him to five years’ imprisonment. He argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a directed verdict. Finding that the evidence presented was sufficient to allow the case to be submitted to the jury, we affirm.

Richards V Com, 2003-CA-001922-MR-- Not Published; 2003-CA-000855-MR Affirming -MR -- PDF

At about 2:00 a.m. on March 22, 2003, a police officer knocked on the door of room 140 at the New Circle Inn motel in Lexington. Terrence Richards, who was not the registered occupant, answered the knock, admitted the officer to the room, and told the officer his name. When an inquiry revealed warrants outstanding for Richards’s arrest, the officer took him into custody and searched him. He found a small quantity of crack cocaine in Richards’s pocket.

Richardson v Com, 2003-CA-000165 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming-- PDF

The primary issue in this appeal is whether the circuit court erred in denying Richardson’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilt to first-degree assault and first-degree unlawful imprisonment. Because we find no error in the refusal of the circuit court to allow withdrawal of the plea, we affirm

Richardson v Com, 2003-CA-000165 --Not To Be Published; Affirming-- PDF

The primary issue in this appeal is whether the circuit court erred in denying Richardson’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilt to first-degree assault and first-degree unlawful imprisonment. Because we find no error in the refusal of the circuit court to allow withdrawal of the plea, we affirm the judgment in this case.

Richardson V Com, 2003-CA-002462--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

James W. Richardson (Richardson) appeals his conviction for unlawful imprisonment, persistent felony offender, second degree, and two misdemeanors, based on a conditional plea reserving the right to appeal the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress his statements to the police, contending he has limited intellectual capabilities and he was.

Rigdon v Com, 2003-CA-000872 -- To Be Published; Affirming-- PDF

Larry Michael Rigdon II (Rigdon), pro se, appeals as a matter of right from the judgment of the Henderson Circuit Court sentencing him to a total of three years’ imprisonment following his guilty plea to one count of receiving stolen property over $3001 and one count of theft of services under $300.2 Rigdon asserts that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on his allegation that it was involuntary because it was the product of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Riley v Com, 2003-CA-000628 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming-- PDF

JUDGE: On November 8, 2002, a Caldwell County grand jury returned an indictment charging George J. Riley with four counts of first degree trafficking in a controlled substance (cocaine),2 and with being a persistent felony offender in the first degree. The Commonwealth alleged that, on April 26, 2002, Riley sold cocaine to a police informant, Wendell Knight, Jr.4 Following a trial, the jury found Riley guilty of the charged offenses. Prior to the commencement of the sentencing phase, the parties reached an agreement as to the punishment, and Riley entered a plea of guilty to the charge of being a PFO I.

Ritchie V Com, 2003-CA-001626-MR-- Not Published; 2003-CA-000855-MR Affirming-MR -- PDF

Benjamin Loyd Ritchie appeals from a judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court finding him guilty of third-degree burglary and second-degree criminal trespass and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment following a jury trial. The sole issue on appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. We believe there was, and we thus affirm.

Roberson V Com, /2003-CA-002705-MR Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

A motion under Ky. R. Civ. P. (CR) 60.02(f) provides a final avenue for collateral attack on a judgment of conviction on issues that could not reasonably have been presented in a direct appeal of the judgment or by a motion under Ky. R. Crim. P. (RCr) 11.42. In order to prevail under CR 60.02(f), the motion must be made within a reasonable time after entry of judgment; and it must demonstrate grounds “of an extraordinary nature.” The Trigg Circuit Court denied Kelvin Eugene Roberson’s CR 60.02 attack on his eighteen-year-old conviction because he did not bring it within a reasonable time.

Robertson v. Com., 2002-CA-001997 -- Not Published; Affirming -- PDF

Teddy L. Robertson, II (Robertson) appeals from an order of the Todd Circuit Court of August 29, 2002, which denied his motion to suppress evidence. He entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession of a controlled substance, first degree, and possession of marijuana, less than eight ounces.

Robertson v. Com., 2003-CA-000604-- Not Published; Affirming -- PDF

Curtis Robertson appeals from an order of the McCracken Circuit Court of February 20, 2003, which denied his motion for relief from a December 1999 criminal conviction and sentence. He maintains that errors by counsel compromised his constitutional right to effective legal assistance.

Robinson V Com, 2003-CA-001060-MR-- Not Published; 2003-CA-000855-MR Affirming -- PDF

Ronnie Lee Robinson has appealed from a final judgment and sentence of the Fayette Circuit Court entered on April 22, 2003, following his conditional guilty pleas to one count of trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree,1 to one count of tampering with physical evidence,2 and to being a persistent felony offender in the second degree (PFO II).3 Having concluded that the Fayette Circuit Court did not err by denying his motion to suppress evidence, we affirm.

Rodefer v Com., 2003-CA-001059-MR -- To Be Published; Reversing And Remanding -- PDF

James Patrick Rodefer has appealed from a final judgment and sentence of the Fayette Circuit Court entered on April 24, 2003, which, following his conviction for trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree,1 criminal attempt to commit burglary in the third degree,2 possession of burglar’s tools,3 possession of drug paraphernalia (first offense),4 and as being a persistent felony offender in the first degree (PFO I),5 sentenced Rodefer to ten years’ imprisonment in accordance with the jury’s recommendations.

Rodefer V Com, 2003-CA-001059-MR-- Published; 2003-CA-000855-MR Affirming In Part Reversing In Part-MR -- PDF

James Patrick Rodefer has appealed from a final judgment and sentence of the Fayette Circuit Court entered on April 24, 2003, which, following his conviction for trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree,1 criminal attempt to commit burglary in the third degree,2 possession of burglar’s

Rowan V Com, 2003-CA-000690--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

In March 1981, while on probation for a 1976 conviction for robbery, Chyralle Rowan burglarized a residence in Anchorage. He was indicted for the burglary in April 1981 and released on bond. In August 1981, while awaiting trial for the April offense, Rowan burglarized another residence. He was indicted for this second burglary in September 1981. In September 1982, Rowan pled guilty to both charges.

Rucker v. Com, /2003-CA-001282--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

This is the third time Appellant, Donald Rucker (Rucker), has been before this court with a RCr 11.42 motion. Because this RCr 11.42 motion presents the same issues that have already been decided by this Court in the previous two RCr 11.42 motions, we affirm the trial court’s denial of leave for Rucker to file a third RCr 11.42 motion.

Return to the Main Table of Cases