2005 Unpublished Court of Appeals Opinions Index

Table of Cases
C

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.

Caldwell v Com,2004-CA-000989 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

In March 1999 Gary Caldwell was indicted for manufacturing methamphetamine, a Class B felony. On June 7 of that year, Caldwell entered a plea of guilty to trafficking in methamphetamine, a Class C felony. He was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. Caldwell received shock probation the following December for testifying as a witness for the Commonwealth against several others.

Cahill III v Com.,2004-CA-001192 -- Not Published ; Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part and Remanding -- PDF

Robert Cahill, III, appeals from a judgment of the Fulton Circuit Court, entered May 13, 2004, convicting him of tampering with anhydrous ammonia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine by complicity;1 and third-degree criminal trespass by complicity.2 He was sentenced to sixteen years in prison and a $250.00 fine, respectively. He contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a directed verdict with respect to his alleged intent to promote the manufacture of methamphetamine, by misinstructing the jury, and by failing to separate one of the Commonwealth’s witnesses. Because we agree that the jury instructions were fatally flawed, we reverse in part and remand.

Carpenter v Com, 2003-CA-001005 -- Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Jeffery L. Carpenter has appealed from the final judgment entered by the Butler Circuit Court on April 17, 2003, following a jury verdict of guilty on one count of sexual abuse in the first degree,1 and guilty of persistent felony offender in the first degree (PFO I).2 Carpenter was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment pursuant to the jury’s recommendation. Having concluded that (1) Carpenter’s motion for disposition of pending charges was not filed in accordance with KRS 500.110 and that he waived his speedy trial motion, and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike Juror No. 35 for cause, we affirm.

Carr v Com, 2004-CA-001319 -- Not Published ;Affirming -- PDF

Anthony Carr was found guilty of receiving stolen property valued over $300 and pleaded guilty to persistent felony offender in the second degree. On appeal, the sole issue raised is whether the circuit court erred when it denied Carr’s motion to suppress evidence allegedly obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure. We hold that the circuit court’s finding that Carr consented to the search is supported by substantial evidence and affirm.

Carver v Com, 2003-CA-001774 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Randall Carver appeals from an order of the Warren Circuit Court denying his pro se CR 60.02 motion. Carver was convicted following a jury trial in 1989 of receiving stolen property and of being a persistent felony offender (PFO). As found by the court below, the instant CR 60.02 motion was the second one filed by Carver.

Caldwell v Com, 2003-CA-000356 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

A circuit court jury convicted Daniel Lynn Caldwell of assaulting Michael Gambrel by shooting him in the head with a handgun at close range. And the court sentenced Caldwell to a maximum of seven years in prison. On direct appeal from that judgment, Caldwell asserts two trial errors that call for reversal. Specifically, he argues that the trial court erred by allowing into evidence a single photograph that Gambrell described as showing a spot where one of the bullets Caldwell fired at him struck an exterior wall of Gambrell’s house. He also argues that the trial court erred by failing to direct a verdict of acquittal on its own motion. We find no merit in either of Caldwell’s arguments. So we affirm the judgment.

Carpenter v Com, 2003-CA-001879 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Mitchell Carpenter appeals from an order of the Laurel Circuit Court denying his request for relief pursuant to Kentucky Civil Rule (CR) 60.02. Carpenter argues that the trial court erroneously sentenced him to a term exceeding the limits imposed by statute and also violated the prohibitions against double jeopardy and multiple punishments contained in the United States and Kentucky Constitutions.

Caudill v Com, 2004-CA-001729 -- Not Published ; Affirming in part, Reversing in part and Remanding -- PDF

Jason Wayne Caudill (Caudill) brings this appeal from an Order of the Fayette Circuit Court, entered August 4, 2004, summarily denying his "Motion for Relief," made pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in the entry of a guilty plea to ten felony offenses and five misdemeanor offenses, resulting in a sentence of twenty-five years' imprisonment and $21,025.00 in restitution. Before us, Caudill argues that the circuit court erred in not holding an evidentiary hearing to address his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that Caudill is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the sole issue of effective assistance of counsel pertaining to restitution; therefore we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Cavins Jr., v Com, 2004-CA-000028 -- Not To Be Published;Affirming -- PDF

John Louis Cavins, Jr. appeals from a jury verdict and judgment finding him guilty of second degree manslaughter and complicity to robbery first degree and sentencing him to fifteen (15) years imprisonment. Upon review, we affirm.

Cecil v Com., 2004-CA-001433 --Not Published ;Affirming -- PDF

James Cecil appeals pro se from the Hardin Circuit Court’s order denying his motion for RCr 11.42 relief subsequent to an evidentiary hearing. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Chapa v Com., 2004-CA-001889 -- Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

In this collateral attack under RCr 11.42, Gregory Chapa (Gregory) appeals the trial court’s denial of his pro se motion to correct his sentence. In January of 1999, Gregory entered a guilty plea to third degree burglary and being a persistent felony offender in the second degree. The trial court sentenced him to five years on the burglary charge, enhanced to seven years by the persistent felony offendercharge. See this Court’s unpublished opinion in Chapa v. Commonwealth, 2000-CA-002931-MR (2002), which recited Gregory’s actual sentence. Gregory argues that his sentence is contrary to KRS 532.080. In addition to the argument pertaining to sentencing, Gregory argues -- for the first time in this appeal -- that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance.

Chapman v Com, 2004-CA-000882 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

This is an appeal from the final judgment and sentence of the Jefferson Circuit Court. A jury found the appellant, Corey Quantez Chapman, guilty of possession of cocaine and marijuana as a subsequent offender and sentenced him to imprisonment of seven and one-half years. On appeal, Chapman contends that the trial court committed two errors: (1) in failing to dismiss a juror from the venire and (2) in permitting the Commonwealth to introduce evidence tending to show that he -2- had committed other uncharged crimes. As we find no reversible error, we affirm the convictions.

Chappell v Com, 2003-CA-002344 -- Not To Be Published; Reversing -- PDF

Ken Chappell appeals his conviction in the Pulaski Circuit Court for one count of theft by failure to make required disposition of property, KRS 514.070. Chappell argues on appeal that the facts proved by the Commonwealth did not establish that offense. He relies on Commonwealth v. Jeter, 590 S.W.2d 346 (Ky.App. 1979), which held that KRS 514.070 does not criminalize a transaction in which a seller accepts money for the purchase of merchandise and then refuses to deliver the property. Chappell’s motion to dismiss the indictment prior to -2- trial on that basis was denied. Chappell moved for a directed verdict of acquittal at the close of the Commonwealth’s evidence, and at the close of all the evidence. Those motions were denied. After the jury found Chappell guilty, he was sentenced by the court to one year in prison.

Chenault v Com, 2004-CA-000463--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Monica Lee Chenault appeals from an order of the Fayette Circuit Court reflecting her conditional plea of guilty to one count each of first-degree possession of a controlled substance, third-degree possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia, second or subsequent offense. Prior to pleading guilty, Chenault unsuccessfully moved to suppress the introduction of evidence discovered during a police search of her residence. She now appeals the order denying the motion to suppress. For the -2- reasons stated below, we affirm both the order denying the motion to suppress and the judgment reflecting the guilty plea.

Childress v Com, 2004-CA-001594 -- Not Published ; Affirming - -- PDF

Damon Childress appeals from the judgment of the Hart Circuit Court entered on a conditional guilty plea to charges of possession of drug paraphernalia (second offense), fleeing or evading police in the second degree, prescription in an improper container, operating a motor vehicle on a suspended license, and improper equipment. A charge of persistent felony offender in the first degree was dismissed by agreement.

Childs v Com, 2004-CA-000488 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Kevin Childs (Childs), brings this appeal from a February 12, 2004, order of the Kenton Circuit Court overruling his motion to set aside his guilty plea. Before us, Childs argues that the trial court erred in not allowing withdrawal of the guilty plea. We affirm.

Clark v Com, 2003-CA-001954--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Daniel Clark (Clark), takes a direct appeal from the Bullitt Circuit Court judgment convicting him of two counts of first degree sexual abuse. We affirm the conviction.

Clark v Com, 2004-CA-001848 -- Not Published ; Affirming - -- PDF

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s RCr 11.42 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to fully advise appellant regarding a plea agreement offered by the Commonwealth. Upon review of the hearing on the motion, we agree with the trial court that appellant’s counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel. Hence, we affirm.

Clark v Com., 2004-CA-001256 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Eric Ellsworth Clark, pro se, has appealed from the May 27, 2004, order of the Jefferson Circuit Court which denied his pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the trial court’s final judgment and sentence of imprisonment pursuant to RCr1 11.42, without holding an evidentiary hearing. Having concluded that the trial court did not err in denying Clark’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel without holding an evidentiary hearing, we affirm.

Cleaver v Com., 2004-CA-001459 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Alphonso Cleaver appeals pro se from the Hardin Circuit Court’s order denying his motion for relief pursuant to RCr 11.42. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Clem v Com, 2004-CA-002114 -- Not Published ; Affirming - -- PDF

In the early morning hours of July 4, 2003, Officer Jerad Curtsinger of the Lexington Police Department was on patrol when he noticed that the automobile in front of him had veered twice towards the centerline. Cecil Carl Clem was the driver of that automobile. Officer Curtsinger followed Clem’s vehicle for approximately a mile, but, before he could stop the automobile, Clem halted along Dayton Avenue and got out.

Clemente v Com., 2004-CA-001903 --Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

On April 20, 2004, the appellant, Lucio Luna Clemente, entered a plea of guilty to the crime of assault in the first degree. He appeals from the final judgment and twelve-year sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Daviess Circuit Court on August 27, 2004. He also appeals from the court’s order of August 19, 2004, which denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Cleveland v Com, 2004-CA-000978 --Not To be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Bryan Cleveland (Cleveland), appeals his conviction of flagrant non-Support, claiming that the Commonwealth of Kentucky lacked jurisdiction to hear his case. This appeal is based on a question of law, therefore, our review will be De Novo. Because we agree with the trial court that the Commonwealth of Kentucky does have jurisdiction, we affirm.

Cleveland v Com, 2004-CA-000978 -- Published ; Affirming - -- PDF

Appellant, Bryan Cleveland (Cleveland), appeals his conviction of flagrant nonsupport, claiming that the Commonwealth of Kentucky lacked jurisdiction to hear his case. This appeal is based on a question of law; therefore, our review will be De Novo. Because we agree with the trial court that the Commonwealth of Kentucky does have jurisdiction, we affirm.

Cline v Com, 2003-CA-002259--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Phillip Cline (Cline), appeals his Floyd Circuit Court conviction of reckless homicide. Cline contends that a separate federal conviction barred the state charge. The circuit court found that the state charge was separate and distinct. We affirm the trial court’s ruling.

Cochran v Com,2004-CA-000799 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Ewell Cochran brings this pro se appeal from a January 28, 2004, order of the Rowan Circuit Court denying his Ky. R. Crim. P. (RCr) 11.42 motion to vacate his fifty-year sentence of imprisonment. We affirm.

Coffman v Com.,2004-CA-002140 -- Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

David Coffman appeals from the judgment of the Casey Circuit Court convicting him of second-degree assault and tampering with physical evidence. Coffman argues that the trial court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict due to insufficiency of the evidence to prove intentional conduct on his part or serious injury to the victim. We disagree and affirm the trial court.

Coker v Com, 2004-CA-000398 --Not To Be Published ; Reversing and Remanding -- PDF

For the past thirty years, Martin Twist, an entrepreneur, has owned and operated numerous businesses specializing in drilling for natural gas. Since Twist’s businesses have historically been capital intensive, he has been required over the years to solicit large sums of money from numerous individuals. According to Twist, he has always kept investor information confidential. Twist has employed agents to call and solicit money from potential investors. Two of Twist’s solicitors were Ronnie Lee Coker and Forrest Hammond. In early 2003, Twist fired both employees.

Coker v Com,2004-CA-000398 -- Not Published ; Reversing and Remanding -- PDF

For the past thirty years, Martin Twist, an entrepreneur, has owned and operated numerous businesses specializing in drilling for natural gas. Since Twist’s businesses have historically been capital intensive, he has been required over the years to solicit large sums of money from numerous individuals. According to Twist, he has always kept investor information confidential. Twist has employed agents to call and solicit money from potential investors. Two of Twist’s solicitors were Ronnie Lee Coker and Forrest Hammond. In early 2003, Twist fired both employees.

Cole v Com., 2004-CA-002228 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Julius Cole appeals from an order of the McCracken Circuit Court, entered September 29, 2004, revoking his conditional discharge from prison and ordering him to serve the remaining three years of his sentence. Cole contends that the statute creating the three-year extension of his sentence is an unconstitutional usurpation by the General Assembly of a judicial function and that the extension amounts to a cruel and unusual punishment. Because Cole’s attack upon the statute was not preserved and because his four-year total sentence for first-degree sexual abuse is not grossly disproportionate, we affirm.

Coleman v Com, 2003-CA-001399 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Brent Marcel Coleman Jr., brings Appeal No. 2003-CA-001399-MR from a July 1, 2003, judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court on a jury verdict convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and other related crimes. Antonio Taylor brings Appeal No. 2003-CA-001458-MR from a June 24, 2003, judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court on a jury verdict convicting him of complicity to commit manslaughter in the second degree and other related crimes. We affirm.

Coleman v Com, 2005-CA-000300 -- Not Published ; Affirming - -- PDF

Following his plea of guilty to various felonies and the status offense of being a first-degree persistent felon, Tim Joe Coleman filed a RCr 11.42 motion to vacate his 60-year sentence on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. He alleged that his attorney had informed him, and he had been persuaded by the fact, that his maximum sentence would be 20 years. The motion was denied, and this court affirmed; discretionary review was denied by the Kentucky Supreme Court.

Collins v Com., 2004-CA-001424 -- Not to be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

This is an appeal from a judgment entered by the McCracken Circuit Court after a jury convicted appellant David Wayne Collins of possession of anhydrous ammonia in an unapproved container with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, and first-degree possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine. For the reasons stated hereafter, we affirm.

Collins v Com, 2003-CA-002127 --Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Andre Collins appeals, pro se, from an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court denying his motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. He argues that his attorney provided ineffective assistance, both at trial and in advising him to plead guilty and accept an agreed upon sentence after the jury convicted him. His guilty plea waives any issues regarding counsel’s performance except insofar as it related to his decision to plead guilty. Thus, the only issues for our consideration are counsel’s performance in advising Collins to plead guilty, the trial court’s decision to appoint counsel only for Collins’ appeal, and the refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing. We find that the trial court acted properly within the bounds of its discretion in denying all of Collins’ requests, and we affirm the trial court’s order denying post-conviction relief.

Com v Brown, 2003-CA-002624 -- Not Published ; Reversing - -- PDF

The Commonwealth appeals from a November 25, 2003 order of the Fayette Circuit Court sustaining Karen Brown’s RCr1 11.42 motion for post-conviction relief. On review, we reverse.

Com. v Evans, 2004-CA-001914 -- Not Published ; Reversing and Remanding -- PDF

The Commonwealth of Kentucky has taken an interlocutory appeal pursuant to KRS 22A.020(4) from the Jefferson Circuit Court’s August 11, 2004, order suppressing evidence against Kevin Evans seized in a search of his vehicle on October 8, 2003, during a traffic stop. After reviewing the record and considering the parties’ briefs and relevant case law, we reverse and remand.

Com. v Honorable Armstrong and Smaljovic., 2004-CA-000646 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Commonwealth of Kentucky brings this appeal from a February 9, 2004, Opinion and Order of the Jefferson Circuit Court that denied the Commonwealth’s petition for a writ of prohibition against the Honorable Donald Armstrong, Jefferson District Court Judge. Ky. R. Civ. P. 81. We affirm.

Com v Gevorgiyan, 2003-CA-002743 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Commonwealth of Kentucky, appeals the Warren Circuit Court’s order sustaining a motion to amend plea and judgment entered November 21, 2003. We affirm the trial court’s ruling on the motion.

Com v Goff, 2004-CA-000794 -- Not to be Published ; Reversing and Remanding -- PDF

The Commonwealth appeals the denial in the Washington Circuit Court of its motion requesting forfeiture following a drug trafficking prosecution. The Commonwealth sought forfeiture of $4,000 held by Kenneth D. Goff at the time of his arrest for two counts of trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree and one count of being a persistent felony offender in the second degree. This arrest took place two months after the alleged date of commission of the offense, following indictment by the grand jury. On appeal, the Commonwealth argues that the trial court held the Commonwealth to too high a burden of proof to establish the nexus for forfeiture. In addition, the Commonwealth asserts Goff’s proof was not credible and not substantiated.

Com v Greenwood, 2004-CA-001767 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, appeals the grant of a writ of prohibition by the Breckinridge Circuit Court preventing a retrial in District Court of the Appellee, Hubert Greenwood’s (Greenwood), charge of driving under the influence on the grounds of double jeopardy. We affirm the trial court’s ruling.

Com v Harlow, 2004-CA-000996 -- Not to be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

The Commonwealth appeals from a Barren Circuit Court order and two amended final judgments granting in part a motion by Jeffrey D. Harlow to withdraw his plea of guilty. Harlow had entered a plea of guilty to two charges of wanton endangerment and one charge of first-degree stalking. After final judgment and sentencing, the circuit court allowed him to withdraw the plea of guilty to stalking on the ground that it was involuntary, and sentenced him to serve six years on the remaining charges. The Commonwealth contends that there was no evidence that Harlow’s plea was involuntary, and that in allowing him to withdraw only part of his plea, the circuit court improperly interjected itself into the area of plea negotiations.

Com v Holderman, 2004-CA-002525 -- Not Published ; Affirming - -- PDF

The Commonwealth of Kentucky appeals from an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court dismissing the April 30, 2003, indictment against Benjamin Holderman. The indictment alleged that Holderman, a registered sex offender, violated a provision of the 2000 version of “Megan’s Law”, KRS 17.510, requiring him to notify the state police of a change of address. The indictment also alleged that Holderman was a persistent felony offender in the first degree. The Jefferson Circuit Court dismissed the indictment after agreeing with Holderman’s contention that Peterson v. Shake,2 prohibited Holderman from being charged under the 2000 version of Megan’s Law because he was already a registrant under the 1994 version of the law. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the order on appeal.

Com. v Moore, 2004-CA-000891 -- Not To Be Published; Reversing & Remanding -- PDF

The Commonwealth of Kentucky appeals from an order of the Russell Circuit Court dismissing an indictment for jury tampering against Thomas Moore. The Commonwealth argues that the trial court usurped the function of the jury in making a factual determination that it could not prove the elements of the offense at trial. We agree; hence, the order is reversed and this case is remanded for a jury trial.

Com V Rainey, 2002-CA-002070--Not To Be Published; Reversing and Remanding -- PDF

This matter is before us on remand from the Kentucky Supreme Court by Opinion and Order entered December 8, 2004. The Supreme Court vacated our Opinion rendered February 13, 2004, and ordered us to reconsider it in light of Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615, 124 S. Ct. 2127, 158 L. Ed. 2d 905 (2004). Having considered Thornton, we issue the following opinion.The Commonwealth of Kentucky brings this interlocutory appeal from a September 5, 2002, order of the Jefferson Circuit Court. Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 22A.020. We reverse and remand.

Com. v Young,2004-CA-002370 -- To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

The Commonwealth of Kentucky appeals from an order of the Anderson Circuit Court allowing certain evidence of an alleged victim’s behavior to be admitted in a rape prosecution. Barry Young, the defendant in this case, filed a motion prior to trial to introduce certain acts by the alleged victim in support of his defense that their sexual encounter was consensual. The trial court agreed to admit evidence of the prosecuting witness’ sexual fantasy about the defendant, her multiple appearances at his place of employment prior to the incident, and her relationship with the Lawrenceburg City Police Department afterwards. The Commonwealth argues that this evidence violates Kentucky’s rape shield rule. We disagree and affirm the trial court.

Conn v Com, 2003-CA-002096--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

While Gregory Allen Conn was in federal custody in Ohio for manufacturing methamphetamine, his sister volunteered to clean his apartment. She and her husband obtained a key from Conn’s landlord, then drilled a hole in the lock to gain access to Conn’s bedroom. Upon entering the bedroom, the sister immediately left and contacted the state police. After she described the contents of her brother’s

Conway v Com., 2004-CA-001689 --Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

On July 14, 2003, a Fayette County grand jury returned an indictment charging Jessie Conway with two counts of trafficking in a controlled substance within one-thousand yards of a school,1 and one count each of possession of drug paraphernalia, second offense,2 alcohol intoxication,3 and being a persistent felony offender in the first degree (PFO I).4 Thereafter, Conway filed a motion to suppress statements which he made to police officers following his arrest. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion, finding that Conway’s statements were knowing and voluntary.

Cooper v Com, 2004-CA-001402 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

At approximately 6:00 a.m. on March 15, 1996, the appellant, Chris Cooper, drove his truck southbound into the northbound lanes of Wayne Sullivan Drive in McCracken County, Kentucky, and collided head-on with a car being driven by Barbara Darnell, a 52-year old woman who was on her way to work. Darnell died at the scene, and Cooper was convicted of murder and first-degree wanton endangerment.1 He was sentenced to 22 years in prison for the offenses, and the Kentucky Supreme Court upheld his convictions and sentence on appeal. Cooper later filed postconviction motions pursuant to RCr2 11.42 and CR3 60.02, but the court denied both motions. Furthermore, in separate opinions this court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of those motions.

Cooper III v Com, 2004-CA-001737 --Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

On March 16, 2003, Appellant, Charles E. Cooper, III, visited the Oxmoor Mall in Louisville, Kentucky, and entered the Gymboree store. Appellant allegedly entered into a rear storage room that contained an office, took items from employees’ purses, and then left the store upon discovery by an employee. Appellant was indicted on October 13, 2003 on one count of burglary in the third degree and for being a persistent felony offender in the first degree. Appellant filed a motion to dismiss the burglary in the third degree charge on April 7, 2004. This motion was not heard by the court because Appellant accepted a plea agreement from the Commonwealth. Appellant agreed to plead guilty to persistent felony offender in the second degree and conditionally plead guilty to the charge of burglary in the third degree, pursuant to RCr 8.09. The trial court entered judgment on the guilty plea on April 20, 2004, but preserved Appellant’s right to appeal the sole issue of the burglary in the third degree charge. Subsequently, Appellant was sentenced by judgment entered July 26, 2004 to a total of six years on the charges, but was granted probation for five years. This appeal followed.

Cox v Com, 2004-CA-000481--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Appellant Christopher Cox (Cox), pro se, brings this appeal from an order of the Bell Circuit Court, entered February 13, 2004, summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42. Because Cox pled guilty and all of the issues he raised in his post-conviction motion could be determined as meritless from the face of the record, we affirm.

Crawford v Com., 2004-CA-001304 -- Not Published ;Affirming -- PDF

Michele Crawford appeals from the denial of her Motion for Sentence Modification, filed pursuant to CR1 60.02. We affirm.

Creech v Com, 2004-CA-000910 -- Not Published ; Affirming - -- PDF

Carlos Creech was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment after a jury found him guilty of second-degree manslaughter for the shooting death of Selva Ray Thomas. Creech now appeals the judgment of conviction and sentence claiming that the trial court erred when it failed to suppress his confession, improperly instructed the jury on the elements of second-degree manslaughter and reckless homicide, and that a panel of this court erred in an interlocutory appeal when it reversed the trial court’s grant of a new trial. We find no merit to any of Creech’s arguments.

Crooks v Com., 2004-CA-001710 --Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Jose Crooks appeals from an August 3, 2004, judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court sentencing him to a total of fifteen years’ imprisonment. We affirm.

Cross v Com, 2004-CA-001149 -- Not to be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Torrey Cross (Cross) brings this appeal from a "Judgment of Conviction and Sentence with Jury Trial" from the Jefferson Circuit Court, entered May 12, 2004, adjudging him guilty of second-degree burglary,2 second-degree robbery,3 and first-degree persistent felony offender (PFO I)4 and imposing the jury recommended punishment of ten years on each charge, to run concurrently for a term of ten years. We affirm.

Crum v Com, 2004-CA-000180 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

James A. Crum appeals from an order of the Pike Circuit Court denying his motion to suppress evidence. The issue is whether the circuit court erred in determining that the evidence seized from Crum’s residence was admissible pursuant to the good-faith exception to the search warrant requirement. We conclude that the court did not err, and we thus affirm.

Crum v Com., 2004-CA-002384 -- To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Kevin Paul Crum brings this appeal from an October 21, 2004, judgment of the Mercer Circuit Court upon a conditional plea of guilty to two counts of attempted murder, four counts of wanton endangerment, receiving stolen property, carrying a concealed weapon, improper registration, and third-degree criminal trespass. We affirm.

Cundiff v Com, 2003-CA-002338 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Travis Cundiff was convicted of Trafficking in a Controlled Substance, First Degree, and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. He contends that he was entitled to an entrapment instruction and, although the issue is not preserved for review, that the lack of the instruction constitutes palpable error warranting reversal. We disagree and affirm.

Curry v Com, 2004-CA-001208 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

After the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed his conviction for first-degree assault and for being a first-degree persistent felony offender (“PFO I”), Erric Curry moved to alter, amend, or vacate his sentence under RCr1 11.42. The Jefferson Circuit Court denied his motion, ruling that Erric had not met his burden of proof. We agree with the circuit court’s ruling and affirm.

Curry V Com., 2004-CA-001164 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Decorick Curry appeals from an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court denying his RCr1 11.42 motion. We affirm.
Return to the Main Table of Cases