2005 Court of Appeals Opinions Index

Table of Cases
A

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.


Abney v Com,2003-CA-002637 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

In May 1998, the mobile home of Gina Abney’s parents burned after someone poured gasoline around it and set it on fire. George Abney, Sr., Gina’s estranged husband, was suspected of committing arson. Several months later, Scotty Karnes, incarcerated on an unrelated matter, stated that appellant had hired Karnes and George Abney, Jr., to burn the residence. All three men were indicted.

Abrams v Com, 2004-CA-001206 -- Not to be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s RCr 11.42 motion alleging that the Commonwealth fraudulently obtained a plea bargain with appellant. Appellant argues that the Commonwealth defrauded and deceived appellant into accepting the plea agreement in which he received two three-year sentences for two charges of fourth-degree assault. From our review of the record, appellant was fully informed that the fourth-degree assault charges were being enhanced to Class D felonies under KRS 508.032, and that he could have received a -2- maximum of fifteen years’ imprisonment if he went to trial. Further, there was no evidence in the record that appellant was defrauded or deceived by the Commonwealth into accepting the plea agreement. Accordingly, the record established that appellant’s plea was not obtained through fraud or deceit and was voluntary. Hence, we affirm.

Abrams v Com, 2004-CA-001206 -- Not to be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s RCr 11.42 motion alleging that the Commonwealth fraudulently obtained a plea bargain with appellant. Appellant argues that the Commonwealth defrauded and deceived appellant into accepting the plea agreement in which he received two three-year sentences for two charges of fourth-degree assault. From our review of the record, appellant was fully informed that the fourth-degree assault charges were being enhanced to Class D felonies under KRS 508.032, and that he could have received a -2- maximum of fifteen years’ imprisonment if he went to trial. Further, there was no evidence in the record that appellant was defrauded or deceived by the Commonwealth into accepting the plea agreement. Accordingly, the record established that appellant’s plea was not obtained through fraud or deceit and was voluntary. Hence, we affirm.

Adams V Com, 2004-CA-000066--Not To Be Published; Vacating and Remanding -- PDF

Robert E. Adams has appealed from an order entered by the Morgan Circuit Court on December 10, 2003, which denied his pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to RCr1 11.42, without an evidentiary hearing. Having concluded that that the circuit court erred by rejecting Adams’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel without holding an evidentiary hearing, we must vacate the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

Adams v Com, 2003-CA-002479--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

This is an appeal from a Jefferson Circuit Court judgment sentencing appellant Vincent Adams to five years imprisonment for promoting contraband in the first degree and for being a persistent felony offender (PFO) in the second degree. Adams argues that the trial court erred by failing to grant his motions for a directed verdict, and by sustaining the Commonwealth’s objection to certain evidence. We affirm the Jefferson Circuit Court’s judgment.

Adams V Com, 2004-CA-000066--Not To Be Published; Vacating and Remanding -- PDF

Robert E. Adams has appealed from an order entered by the Morgan Circuit Court on December 10, 2003, which denied his pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to RCr1 11.42, without an evidentiary hearing. Having concluded that that the circuit court erred by rejecting Adams’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel without holding an evidentiary hearing, we must vacate the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

Akers v Com, 2004-CA-001212 -- Not to be Published ; Affirming In Part, Reversing In Part and Remanding -- PDF

Appellant, Edward Akers (Akers), appeals, Pro Se, the Pike Circuit Court’s denial of his motion for relief filed pursuant to RCr 11.42 without consideration of the merits, as a successive motion. We reverse the circuit court’s ruling, and find that issues were contained in the motion requiring review. The case is remanded with instructions that such review take place.

Akers v Com, 2004-CA-001212 -- Not to be Published ; Affirming In Part, Reversing In Part and Remanding -- PDF

Appellant, Edward Akers (Akers), appeals, Pro Se, the Pike Circuit Court’s denial of his motion for relief filed pursuant to RCr 11.42 without consideration of the merits, as a successive motion. We reverse the circuit court’s ruling, and find that issues were contained in the motion requiring review. The case is remanded with instructions that such review take place.

Allen v Com., 2005-CA-000765 --To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

James and Candace Allen were married on February 24, 1996, in Montgomery County. The marriage produced two minor children, J.A. and C.A. Candace filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on May 22, 1998, but the divorce was not finalized until October 28, 2003. In the meantime, Candace’s parents, Elzie and Sandy Prater, were awarded temporary custody of the two children after a determination of neglect by Candace while James was away with the military.

Allen v Com., 2005-CA-000765 --To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

James and Candace Allen were married on February 24, 1996, in Montgomery County. The marriage produced two minor children, J.A. and C.A. Candace filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on May 22, 1998, but the divorce was not finalized until October 28, 2003. In the meantime, Candace’s parents, Elzie and Sandy Prater, were awarded temporary custody of the two children after a determination of neglect by Candace while James was away with the military.

Alvey v Com, 2004-CA-000199 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Robert Alvey appeals from a conviction of escape in the second degree and of being a persistent felony offender in the first degree following a jury trial. On appeal, he presents the novel issue that this Court should review his first trial that ended in a mistrial based upon a hung jury. He argues that there was insufficient evidence presented by the Commonwealth in the first trial and thus, he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal, which would have prohibited the Commonwealth from trying him a second time. We affirm.

Alvey v Com, 2004-CA-000199 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Robert Alvey appeals from a conviction of escape in the second degree and of being a persistent felony offender in the first degree following a jury trial. On appeal, he presents the novel issue that this Court should review his first trial that ended in a mistrial based upon a hung jury. He argues that there was insufficient evidence presented by the Commonwealth in the first trial and thus, he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal, which would have prohibited the Commonwealth from trying him a second time. We affirm.

Anglen v Com, 2003-CA-001923 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

On March 6, 1998, Denali Marquise Anglen went to the residence of Franco Boggs to purchase crack cocaine. Anglen and Boggs argued, and Anglen shot Boggs five times. Boggs died. Anglen was indicted, tried, and convicted for murder. He was sentenced to twenty-two years’ imprisonment, and his judgment of conviction was affirmed on direct appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court in 2000.

Anglin v. Com, 2004-CA-000397 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Timothy John Anglin has appealed from the January 23, 2004, order of the Madison Circuit Court which revoked his conditional discharge. Having concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Anglin’s conditional discharge, we affirm.

Anglin v. Com, 2004-CA-000397 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Timothy John Anglin has appealed from the January 23, 2004, order of the Madison Circuit Court which revoked his conditional discharge. Having concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Anglin’s conditional discharge, we affirm.

Anglen v Com, 2003-CA-001923 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

On March 6, 1998, Denali Marquise Anglen went to the residence of Franco Boggs to purchase crack cocaine. Anglen and Boggs argued, and Anglen shot Boggs five times. Boggs died. Anglen was indicted, tried, and convicted for murder. He was sentenced to twenty-two years’ imprisonment, and his judgment of conviction was affirmed on direct appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court in 2000.

Ardis v Com, 2004-CA-001650 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

As a general rule, a writ of prohibition is not the proper remedy when the issue is a claimed constitutional defect because the remedy of appeal is adequate. Roderick Ardis brings this appeal from the circuit court’s denial of his request for a writ to prohibit the district court from enforcing its order for Ardis to be involuntarily treated and forcibly medicated, if necessary, to attain competence to stand trial. His substantive argument is based solely on the contention that Kentucky’s statute authorizing involuntary treatment is unconstitutional. We affirm the circuit court’s denial of the writ because Ardis has an adequate remedy by appeal.

Ardis v Com, 2004-CA-001650 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

As a general rule, a writ of prohibition is not the proper remedy when the issue is a claimed constitutional defect because the remedy of appeal is adequate. Roderick Ardis brings this appeal from the circuit court’s denial of his request for a writ to prohibit the district court from enforcing its order for Ardis to be involuntarily treated and forcibly medicated, if necessary, to attain competence to stand trial. His substantive argument is based solely on the contention that Kentucky’s statute authorizing involuntary treatment is unconstitutional. We affirm the circuit court’s denial of the writ because Ardis has an adequate remedy by appeal.

Arnold v Com, 2004-CA-000950 -- Not Published ; Opinion and Order, Dismissing Appeal -- PDF

Demetrius Arnold brings this pro se appeal from a November 17, 2003, order of the Jefferson Circuit Court. Because Arnold’s notice of appeal was not timely filed, we dismiss.

Arnold v Com, 2004-CA-000950 -- Not Published ; Opinion and Order, Dismissing Appeal -- PDF

Demetrius Arnold brings this pro se appeal from a November 17, 2003, order of the Jefferson Circuit Court. Because Arnold’s notice of appeal was not timely filed, we dismiss.

Atherton v Com, 2003-CA-002264--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, William Thomas Atherton (Atherton), appeals the Daviess Circuit Court’s denial of his motion for relief pursuant to RCr 11.42. We affirm the denial.

Ault v. Com, 2003-CA-002584 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

At 4:00 a.m. on the morning of August 10, 1996, Gary M. Ault, a drunk driver, drove his vehicle onto Interstate 64 in Louisville at the 9th Street exit and began traveling west in the eastbound lane. Because Ault was traveling on the wrong side of the highway, several vehicles had to swerve in order to avoid being hit by the Ault vehicle. Tragically, the Ault vehicle crashed head-on into a truck driven by Richard Melson, killing Melson instantly.
Return to the Main Table of Cases