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.

T.A. A Child Under 18 v Com, 2003-CA-000404-MR--Not To Be Published; Dismissing As Moot -- PDF

T.A., who was a child under eighteen at the time of the filing of this appeal but is now an adult, appeals from the order of the Jefferson Circuit Court, which affirmed the Jefferson District Court's order denying his motion to terminate his commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) under Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 610.120. As the Appellant is now an adult and not in the custody of DJJ, our decision will not affect his substantial rights, and we hold that this case is now moot for lack of a justiciable controversy.

Tabor v Com, 2003-CA-000023-- Not To Be Published; Reversing and Remanding -- PDF

Carrie Tabor appeals from the judgment of the Franklin Circuit Court finding her guilty of criminal mischief in the first degree, for which she was sentenced to one year's imprisonment, probated for three years. Tabor argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to convict her of the charge and that she should have been granted a directed verdict at the close of the evidence, that she was entitled to funds for an expert witness who could have testified to the nature of the

Tapp v. Com., 2002-CA-002332-- Not Published; Affirming -- PDF

Clarence Tapp appeals from a judgment of the McCracken Circuit Court, entered October 14, 2002, convicting him of first-degree possession of cocaine1 and sentencing him as a second-degree persistent felon2 to seven years’ imprisonment.

Taylor v. Com., 2002-CA-002484-- Not Published; Reversing and Remanding -- PDF

Steven Taylor appeals from an order of Campbell Circuit court denying his motion for relief from sentence pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42. He alleges that as a result of his counsel’s ineffectiveness, he pled guilty to charges for which he would otherwise have insisted upon going to trial.

Taylor V Com, 2003-CA-001673--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

This is an appeal from a judgment entered by the Daviess Circuit Court after a jury found appellant Melvin C. Taylor guilty of assault in the second degree and of being a persistent felony offender (PFO) in the second degree. Appellant alleges that the trial court erred by failing to strike a prospective juror for cause and by failing to enter a directed verdict of acquittal on the charge of assault in the second degree. For the reasons stated hereafter, we affirm.

Taylor V Com,2003-CA-002138--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s CR 60.02 motion to set aside the order revoking his probation. Because appellant’s motion was not filed within a year of the revocation order, it was untimely pursuant to CR 60.02(c). Hence, we affirm.

Teague V Com, 2003-CA-001980--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

This is a pro se appeal from the Jefferson Circuit Court’s order denying appellant Jaron Shawn Teague’s RCr 11.42 motion to vacate the trial court’s judgment, which was entered after appellant pled guilty to escape in the second degree and to being a persistent felony offender (PFO) in the first degree. Appellant claims that he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel. For the reasons stated hereafter, we affirm.

Terry v. Com, 2003-CA-000426-MR--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Montica Terry (Terry), pro se, has appealed from an opinion and order entered by the Logan Circuit Court on October 21, 2002, that denied his motion for relief pursuant to Ky. R. Civ. P. (CR) 60.02 to vacate his sentence. Terry argues that he gave an invalid guilty plea due to the trial court failing to require the Commonwealth to submit a “Bill of Particulars” and ineffective assistance of counsel. Since Terry failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to extraordinary relief pursuant to CR 60.02, we affirm.

Thacker V Com, 2003-CA-000263 --Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Clyde Ray Thacker appeals as a matter of right 1 from the Pike Circuit Court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Thacker asserts that the denial of this motion was an abuse of discretion for the following reasons: 1) he was prejudiced by joint legal representation with a co-defendant, Johndra Baldridge; 2) his guilty plea was not entered freely,

Thomas v. Com., 2003-CA-001092-- Not Published; Affirming -- PDF

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, Marshall C. Thomas entered a conditional guilty plea pursuant to RCr 8.09; he now appeals, challenging the trial court’s denial of the motion. We affirm.

Thomas v. Com., 2002-CA-002402-- Not Published; Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Justin B. Thomas, was indicted by a Fulton County Grand Jury for the offenses of complicity to promote contraband in the first degree, attempted unlawful transaction with a minor in the first degree, attempted unlawful transaction with a minor in the second degree and with being a persistent felony offender in the second degree. Appellant was arraigned on the indictment and entered a plea of not guilty.

Thomas v. Com., 2003-CA-000166-- Not Published; Vacating and Remanding -- PDF

In December 2002, Carleen Thomas conditionally pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of driving under the influence and to a felony charge of operating a vehicle while her license was suspended. By order entered January 17, 2003, the Madison Circuit Court sentenced her to concurrent terms of incarceration of six months and one year, respectively.

Thompson v. Com., 2002-CA-002544 -- Not Published; Affirming -- PDF

James Thompson has appealed from two orders of the Kenton Circuit Court that denied his request for relief pursuant to RCr 1 11.42. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court concluded that Thompson failed to establish that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance during his 1998 trial on charges of robbery.

Thomson v. Com., 2002-CA-001006 Not Published; Affirming -- PDF

Thompson was operating a motorcycle on the wrong side of the road at a speed of at least 10 miles over the posted speed limit (35 mph) in a residential neighborhood when he struck nine-yearold Autumn Roaden, causing her death.

Thornhill V Com, 2003-CA-002384--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Millard Thornhill appeals from an order of the Letcher Circuit Court denying his motion to vacate the judgment against him pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02. Thornhill’s motion asked the trial court for additional credit against his sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment for time spent in a federal penitentiary after he was convicted on state charges. We find that Thornhill’s CR 60.02 motion was not timely and, thus, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Tillery V Com, 2003-CA-002412-Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

After entering a guilty plea, Timothy Tillery was sentenced to eight years in prison by the Bell Circuit Court for two counts of selling crack cocaine. He did not appeal, but he later filed postconviction motions to vacate the judgment. The motions were denied without an evidentiary hearing being held, and Tillery filed this appeal. We affirm.

Todd v Com, 2003-CA-001622 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Between the pretrial conference and the scheduled trial date, the corrections department failed on two occasions to comply with the circuit court’s orders to transport Joey W. Todd from the county jail. Todd argues on appeal that this somehow abridged his right to a speedy trial and his right to effective legal representation. We find no merit in Todd’s arguments. So we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss the indictment.

Tolbert v Com, 2003-CA-001756-- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

William Tolbert (Tolbert), pro se, has appealed from an opinion and order entered by the Jefferson Circuit Court on July 18, 2003, that denied his motion for relief pursuant to Ky. R. Civ. P. (CR) 60.02 to vacate his sentence. Tolbert argues that the plea agreement with the Commonwealth was not honored, and that the plea agreement itself was illegal and void on its face due to language requiring sentences to run concurrent with a non-received sentence. Since Tolbert failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to extraordinary relief pursuant to CR 60.02, we affirm.

Tourney v. Com, 2002-CA-002510-MR--Not To Be Published; Reversing and Remanding -- PDF

This Court granted Martel L. Turney discretionary review to ascertain whether there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction of sexual abuse in the third degree. KRS 510.030. Our determination is focused on whether there was sufficient proof of sexual contact (as defined in KRS 510.010(7)) with the victim. “A person is guilty of sexual offense in the third degree when he subjects another person to sexual contact withoutmeans any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person done for the purpose of gratifying the sexual desire of either party.” KRS 510.010(7).

Townsend v Com, 2003-CA-000937 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Troy F. Townsend appeals from a judgment of the Simpson Circuit Court, entered April 2, 2003, sentencing him to five years’ in prison following conviction by a jury for trafficking in a controlled substance (cocaine), first degree. We affirm.

Travis v Com, 2003-CA-000127 -- Published; Affirming-- PDF

Mark Travis has appealed from a final judgment and sentence of the Marshall Circuit Court entered on December 23, 2002, which, following Travis’s conditional guilty pleas to manufacturing methamphetamine,1 trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree,2 possession of a controlled substance in the first degree,3 and possession of drug paraphernalia,4 sentenced Travis to ten years’ imprisonment in accordance with the Commonwealth’s recommendations.

Turner v. Com., 2001-CA-002671 Not Published; Affirming -- PDF

On June 10, 1998, Turner was convicted of one count of Receiving Stolen Property and one count of being a Persistent Felony Offender in the first degree. The charge of Possession of a Handgun by Convicted Felon was severed and on June 16, 1998, Turner pled guilty to that count.

Turner v. Com, 2002-CA-001447-MR-- Not Published; Vacating and Affirming -- PDF

Jilletta Turner appeals from a final order of the Grayson Circuit Court entered on June 12, 2002, which summarily denied her RCr 1 11.42 motion to vacate her convictions for murder and assault.

Turner v. Com., 2002-CA-000777 Not Published; Affirming -- PDF

Joe Ray Turner (hereinafter “Turner”) has filed two pro se appeals alleging the Allen Circuit Court erred in denying his RCr 11.42 and CR 60.02 motions. The two appeals have been consolidated for appellate review in that the issues and arguments presented are similar. Having thoroughly reviewed the motions, the facts of the case, the arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm both appeals.

Turner v. Com., 2000-CA-000077- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

The sole issue in this appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction of Kahlil G. Turner (Turner) of the felony offense of trafficking in a controlled substance, first degree (cocaine), in violation of KRS 218A.1412. Having conducted our review in accordance with the standard contained in Commonwealth v. Benham, Ky., 816 S.W.2d 186 (1991), we affirm.

Turner V Com, /2004-CA-000261- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Joe Ray Turner appeals an order of the Allen Circuit Court, denying his motions for post-conviction relief made pursuant to CR 60.02. We affirm.

Turner v. Com, 2004-CA-000113 -- Not Published; Affirming -- PDF

Derric E. Turner has appealed from a final judgment and sentence of imprisonment and order of probation of the Carroll Circuit Court, convicting him of theft by unlawful taking of property with a value of $300.00 or more1 and sentencing him to prison for three and one-half years and probating the sentence for five years and fining him $1,000.00. While Turner is indigent and the imposition of a fine would have been prohibited by KRS 534.030(4), since Turner agreed to the fine in accordance with the terms of a valid plea agreement, we affirm.

Tuttle v. Com, 2002-CA-000443-MR-- Not Published; Affirming -- PDF

Kenneth Tuttle (Tuttle) appeals the trial court’s order denying relief under Rules of Criminal Procedure (CR) 60.02. Tuttle filed the CR 60.02 motion to vacate his 60- year sentence for convictions on two counts of first-degree robbery and two counts of being a second-degree persistent felony offender.

Return to the Main Table of Cases