2005 Unpublished Court of Appeals Opinions Index

Table of Cases
G

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.


Gamble v Com.,2004-CA-001183 -- Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Anthony Gamble was convicted by a jury of several counts of sexual misconduct including first degree sexual abuse, first and second degree rape, and first and second degree sodomy. He appeals from an order and judgment of the Kenton Circuit Court, denying his Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42 motion to vacate his conviction on the ground that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Gamble claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing (1) to procure an expert defense witness; (2) to challenge the admissibility of a videotaped interview between one of the victims and a social worker; (3) to call character witnesses on Gamble’s behalf; and (4) to present an affirmative defense.

Gardner v Com, 2004-CA-000961 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, John M. Gardner (Gardner), appeals the Jefferson Circuit Court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to CR 60.02. We affirm the trial court’s ruling.

Garner v Com, 2004-CA-001820 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Aaron J. Garner, pro se, appeals from an order of the Muhlenberg Circuit Court denying his CR2 60.02 motion to vacate his conviction. Garner argues that his conviction is void because his guilty plea was not knowing and intelligent.

Gaskins v Com, 2005-CA-000284 -- Not Published ; Affirming - -- PDF

Michael Gaskins (Gaskins), pro-se, brings this appeal from an Order of the Taylor Circuit Court, entered November 3, 2004, denying his motion to release evidence seized, with his permission, from his home as a result of a criminal investigation and prosecution. We affirm.

Gibson V Com., 2004-CA-000480 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Roni Gibson appeals from her conviction and two-year sentence in the Campbell Circuit Court for the offense of receiving stolen property over $300.1 The sole issue is whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to prove that the property had a value of at least $300. We believe it was, and we thus affirm.

Gillum v Com.,2004-CA-001016 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Jimmy Gillum appeals pro se from an order entered by the Greenup Circuit Court denying his motion seeking CR 60.02 relief. For the reasons stated hereafter, we affirm.

Gillum v Com.,2004-CA-001016 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Jimmy Gillum appeals pro se from an order entered by the Greenup Circuit Court denying his motion seeking CR 60.02 relief. For the reasons stated hereafter, we affirm.

Glenn v Com.,2004-CA-002448 -- Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

In March 2002, following a two day trial, Delbert L. Glenn was convicted of various sexual offenses against a minor. He was sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. On direct appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court, Glenn made the sole argument that there was improper bolstering of the complaining witness’s testimony. The Supreme Court disagreed, and Glenn’s convictions were affirmed; however, his sentence was reversed, pursuant to KRS 532.080(6)(b), as exceeding the maximum allowable by law. On remand, the Daviess Circuit sentenced Glenn to twenty years’ incarceration.

Glodjo v Com, 2003-CA-000858--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Billy Eugene Glodjo brings this appeal from an April 4, 2003, order of the Warren Circuit Court denying his motion to vacate, set aside or correct judgment and sentence pursuant to Ky. R. Crim. P. (RCr) 11.42. Glodjo asserts his conviction and sentence should be vacated because his rights under the United States and Kentucky constitutions were violated when his trial attorneys provided ineffective assistance during his trial. We affirm.

Glover v Com, 2004-CA-000848 -- Not to be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

John T. Glover appeals from an order of March 25, 2004, of the Whitley Circuit Court that denied his motion filed pursuant to RCr1 11.42 to vacate, set aside, or correct the final judgment and sentence of imprisonment as well as his motion for a new trial filed pursuant to the provisions which fixes the penalty for failure to register as a class A misdemeanor. We disagree and affirm.

Goble v Com, 2004-CA-000713 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

This is an appeal from a judgment denying appellant’s RCr 11.42 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel relative to his guilty plea to various drug offenses. From our review of the record, we agree with the lower court that appellant’s counsel on the guilty plea did not render ineffective assistance in advising his client to plead guilty. Hence we affirm.

Goble v Com.,2004-CA-001197 -- Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Liz Goble was convicted of trafficking in a controlled substance, first degree, and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. She contends that the trial court committed reversible error when it denied her request for an entrapment instruction; when it permitted testimony from a lay person concerning his observation of drugs; and when it included a definition of manufacturing in the jury instructions. We affirm. 1 Senior Judge John Woods

Godby v Com., 2004-CA-001300 -- Not Published ; Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part and Remanding -- PDF

Larry Godby appeals his conviction for intimidating a participant in the legal process (KRS 524.040) for which he was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment. We opine that a threat to “injure” a person encompasses physical injury only under KRS 524.010(8) and KRS 524.040 as amended effective July 15, 2002. Therefore, we reverse in part.

Goldsberry v Com, 2004-CA-001152 -- Not Published ; Affirming - -- PDF

Houston Goldsberry appeals from an order of the Henderson Circuit Court convicting him of manufacturing methamphetamine, tampering with physical evidence and possession of drug paraphernalia and sentencing him to ten years’ imprisonment. Goldsberry entered a conditional guilty plea after the trial court refused to suppress the evidence and statements resulting from a warrantless search of his apartment. He contests the trial court’s finding that exigent circumstances justified the search. We agree with the trial court and, thus, the decision is affirmed.

Gourley v Com, 2004-CA-001196 -- Not to be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Kenneth Gourley appeals from a judgment of the Fulton Circuit Court convicting him of complicity to tampering with anhydrous ammonia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. Gourley contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to warrant the court submitting the case to the jury and that the court should have directed a verdict on the charge. We disagree and thus affirm.

Graham v Com, 2004-CA-001543 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Wayne Graham, pro se, appeals the denial of his CR 60.02(f) motion to set aside his 1980 PFO, first-degree, conviction on the grounds that one of the underlying convictions occurred prior to January 1, 1975, and could not be used for PFO purposes. The PFO statute does not create a new crime. It is a status offense which enhances a sentence on a subsequent offense. Hence, we affirm.

Graves v Com, 2003-CA-001930 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Following a jury trial in February 1991, Samuel Graves was convicted of two counts of capital murder and other offenses stemming from the 1989 slayings in Tompkinsville of Margaret Bailey and LaRon Rainey. By judgment entered April 30, 1991, the Monroe Circuit Court sentenced him to life in prison without parole for at least twenty-five years. Our Supreme Court affirmed Graves’s conviction and life sentence in an unpublished opinion rendered July 1, 1993.1 In August 2002, Graves moved pro se for RCr 11.42 relief from the 1991 judgment on the ground that trial counsel had failed to communicate the Commonwealth’s offer of a plea bargain. By order entered August 11, 2003, the trial court denied Graves’s motion, and Graves, still pro se, has appealed. We affirm.

Gray v Com, 2003-CA-002035 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Kevin Gray appeals from two orders of the Grant Circuit Court entered August 15, 2003, and February 2, 2004, denying motions for post-conviction relief which he filed pursuant to the provisions of RCr2 11.42 and CR3 60.02. After our review of the record and pertinent precedent, we affirm.

Gresham v Com, 2004-CA-001597 -- Not Published ; Affirming - -- PDF

Brian Edward Gresham appeals from a judgment of the Ballard Circuit Court convicting him of marijuana and firearm offenses and sentencing him to twelve years in prison. The sole issue in this case involves exculpatory evidence that Gresham’s attorney claims he did not receive until the day before the trial. We affirm.

Grider v Com.,2004-CA-001054 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Stephen L. Grider brings this pro se appeal from the April 5, 2004, order of the Monroe Circuit Court denying his Ky. R. Civ. P. (CR) 60.02 motion to vacate his twenty-year sentence of imprisonment upon his plea of guilty. We affirm.

Griffin v Com.,2004-CA-001378 -- Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Gary Randall Griffin was convicted of first degree sodomy and sentenced to fifty years’ imprisonment. The victim was his five year-old daughter. Following his trial, Griffin obtained new counsel who appealed Griffin’s case. On April 20, 2000, the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed because of the admission of unduly prejudicial evidence and evidence as to a polygraph examination. On remand, Griffin entered an Alford plea to second degree sodomy and was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. In April 2004, Griffin filed an RCr 11.42 motion alleging that on remand he received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to investigate the case and failed to file various discovery motions. The RCr 11.42 motion and his request for appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing were denied.

Groce v Com, 2003-CA-001780 -- Not To Be Published; Reversing and Remanding -- PDF

Gregory Groce appeals from the judgment of the Clinton Circuit Court that he is guilty of fleeing or evading in the first degree and sentencing him to five years’ imprisonment. Groce raises numerous issues on appeal, but the dispositive issue is whether the trial court’s instructions to the jury deprived him of a unanimous verdict. Although he failed to preserve the issue for appellate review by objecting to the -2- tendered instructions, we choose to review the substantive grounds for this issue pursuant to the palpable error rule, Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 10.26. Consequently, the judgment of the Clinton Circuit Court is reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Groves v Com,2004-CA-000517 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Joseph Don Groves brings this pro se appeal from a February 24, 2004, order of the Muhlenberg Circuit Court denying his Ky. R. Crim P. (RCr) 11.42 motion to vacate his sentence of fourteen years’ imprisonment. We affirm.
Return to the Main Table of Cases