2005 Unpublished Court of Appeals Opinions Index |
|
|
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.
Dailey v Com., 2004-CA-002507
-- Not To Be Published ; Affirming
-- PDF
Damons V Com, 2004-CA-000616--Not To Be Published;
Affirming -- PDF Darnell v Com, 2002-CA-002366--Not To Be
Published; Affirming -- PDF
Delong v Com, 2003-CA-001896
--Not To Be Published ; Reversing in Part, Vacating in Part and Remanding
-- PDF
Denney V Com , 2004-CA-000571 -- Not To Be
Published;Reversing and Remanding -- PDF
Derby v Com, 2004-CA-000959
-- Not Published ; Affirming
-- PDF
Dillard v Com, 2003-CA-002129--Not To Be
Published; Affirming -- PDF
Donahoo v Com,2004-CA-000957
-- Not Published ; Affirming
-- PDF
Donatelli V Com, 2004-CA-000984-- To Be Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Douglas v Com,2004-CA-000579
-- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF
Downs v Com, 2002-CA-002534--Not To Be Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Doyle v Com, 2003-CA-001482
--Not To Be Published ; Affirming -
-- PDF
Draper v Com., 2004-CA-002572
--Not To Be Published ; Affirming
-- PDF
Duboise v Com, 2004-CA-001860
-- Not Published ; Reversing and Remanding -
-- PDF
Duffy v Com., 2004-CA-001422
-- Not Published ; Affirming
-- PDF
Dunaway v Com, 2002-CA-002275--Not To Be
Published; Affirming -- PDF
Duncan v Com, 2004-CA-000902 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF
Duncan v Com, 2003-CA-001654
-- Not Published ; Affirming -
-- PDF
Dunn V Com., 2004-CA-000577
-- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF
Ronald Dailey appeals from an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court denying his motion to return $1,220 forfeited under the terms of a plea agreement. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the order on appeal.
On December 5, 2002, Darrell Lamont Damons
entered a conditional plea of guilty (RCr 8.09) to three amended
drug offenses, operating a motor vehicle while under the
influence (DUI), and being a persistent felony offender (PFO) in
the second degree. His sole issue on appeal is whether the
Fayette Circuit Court erred in denying his motion to suppress
evidence. Finding no error, we affirm.
Clifford Ralph Darnell
appeals from an order of the Greenup Circuit Court denying his RCr1 11.42
motion to vacate his conviction and sentence for criminal offenses. Because we
believe the circuit court correctly denied Darnell’s motion due to his having
completed his sentence and having been released from custody when the court
ruled, we affirm.
Gerald E. Delong has appealed from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the Barren Circuit Court on August 8, 2003, following his conditional plea of guilty to the charge of possession of drug paraphernalia, first offense.1 Having concluded that the extensive search of Delong’s motelroom and automobile could not be supported by the police’s subsequent learning of Delong’s probationary status following his arrest, or by exigent circumstances, we reverse in part. Having further concluded that the initial sweep of the motel room was a constitutional warrantless safety search under exigent circumstances, we vacate in part and remand this matter for additional findings as to which items were in plain view during the sweep.
Appellant, Brad Denney (Denney), appeals pro se
the McCreary Circuit Court’s denial of his motions made pursuant
to RCr 11.42. Denney also claims error in the trial court’s
denial of his request for an evidentiary hearing. We agree an
evidentiary hearing is required and remand the matter for a
hearing upon Denney’s claims. (3)
Matthew Derry appeals from the judgment of the Metcalfe Circuit Court accepting his conditional guilty plea to first-degree sexual abuse and sentencing him to two years’ imprisonment and three years’ conditional discharge. The only issue raised on appeal is whether the charge should have been dismissed as violating his right against double jeopardy. We find that double jeopardy did not attach when Derry requested a
dismissal due to improper venue and, thus, affirm the trial court.
Nakia Dillard appeals from the summary denial of
his RCr 11.42 motion. He alleges that his trial counsel failed
to move for a directed verdict at the close of the
Commonwealth’s proof and failed to request an instruction on the
lesser-included offense of wanton endangerment. We affirm.
Nathon C. Donahoo brings this appeal from an April 2, 2004, Opinion and Order of the McLean Circuit Court denying his motion under Ky. R. Civ. P. (CR) 60.02(e) & (f) to vacate his conviction upon a plea of guilty to manufacturing methamphetamine. We affirm.
If a criminal defendant is represented by a
lawyer who also represents a codefendant, that criminal
defendant must be informed of the possible conflict of interest
by the trial judge and must sign a waiver of the possible
conflict.1 The failure to do so, however, does not necessitate
reversal, but requires a defendant to demonstrate an actual
conflict of interests. In this case, we hold that the defendant, Christopher Donatelli, has failed to do so, and we
therefore affirm.
Leonard R. Douglas appeals the order of
Bullitt Circuit Court denying his motion pursuant to RCr 11.42
to vacate or set aside the sentencing phase and remand the case
for resentencing. He argues on appeal that this court should
reexamine the evidentiary hearing conducted by the circuit court
and grant his RCr 11.42 motion.
Appellant, Ronald Lakin Downs (Downs), appeals
his conviction for first degree rape. We affirm the Montgomery
Circuit Court.
A fifteen-year-old victim accused Downs of raping her
in his vehicle by using forcible compulsion to make her engage
in sexual intercourse with him. The victim was a friend of
Downs’s stepdaughter. The victim admitted consumption of
alcoholic beverages prior to the incident. The victim was
staying overnight at Downs’s home with his stepdaughter when the
attack occurred.
This case involves two appeals
from the August 2001 conviction of Jimmy Dwight Doyle for one count of
second-degree rape. The factual and procedural history of the case is set out in
detail in this court’s 2002 opinion,1 which affirmed the conviction but remanded
the matter for a new sentencing hearing.
Andre Draper brings this direct appeal from his conviction of second-degree burglary and for being a first-degree persistent felony offender (PFO 1). We reject Draper’s arguments that the evidence supported additional jury instructions on lesser-included offenses of second-degree burglary. And even though the trial court improperly instructed
the jury on PFO 1, we hold that this error was not preserved for appellate review and does not rise to the level of palpable error. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence.
Ebony Latreece Duboise has appealed from the McCracken Circuit Court’s Order as to Restitution entered August 18, 2004, in which the amount of restitution was determined to be $39,504. Because we have determined that the Commonwealth did not produce sufficient evidence to establish that amount, we must reverse the order and remand.
Junis Duffy appeals from a July 1, 2004 “Final Judgment/Sentence of Imprisonment” of the McCracken Circuit Court sentencing him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Specifically, he takes issue with certain testimony that was allowed into evidence by the trial court. On review, we affirm.
James Frank Dunaway brings this pro se appeal
from an October 11, 2002, order of the Jefferson Circuit Court
denying Dunaway’s Ky. R. Civ. P. (CR) 60.02 motion requesting a
new trial. We affirm.
William Dale Duncan appeals from two
April 8, 2004 orders of the Muhlenberg Circuit Court denying his
motions for post-conviction relief. Appellant Duncan maintains
that he was entitled to relief on the basis that the indictments
underlying his convictions on two separate charges of escape and
of being a first-degree persistent felon were defective and insufficient to support judgments based upon his guilty pleas to
those offenses. He also maintains that the trial judge erred in
denying his request for findings of fact and conclusions of law
as to the denial of his post-conviction motions. Finding no
error in the decision of the trial judge concerning any of the
motions at issue in this appeal, we affirm.
Frank Duncan appeals from the decision
of the Green Circuit Court denying post-conviction relief pursuant to CR 60.02(E) and (F).
The sole issue before the court is whether or not the denial of the motion was appropriate.
We affirm.
On September 12, 2001, Trooper Ronnie Long, then
an undercover officer of the Kentucky State Police, and John J.
Walters, Jr., a cooperating witness, went to Mervin Dunn’s
residence in Letcher County to try to buy drugs and alcohol from
Dunn. When they arrived Dunn sold Walters a twelve-pack of
Budweiser beer, four Lortab tablets and eight Xanax tablets for
$50.00 cash while Trooper Long looked on. During a search of the residence after the arrest, police found thirteen more cases
of beer, $1,300.00 cash and a quantity of marijuana.
Return
to the Main Table of Cases