2005 Unpublished Court of Appeals Opinions Index

Table of Cases
H

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.

Halvorson v Com.,2004-CA-001911 -- Not To Be Published ; Reversing and Remanding -- PDF

Jason Halvorson brings this appeal from an August 12, 2004, judgment upon a jury verdict convicting him of first-degree manslaughter and sentencing him to eleven years’ imprisonment. We reverse and remand.

Hamilton v Com, 2004-CA-000790 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Sherman Lee Hamilton appeals from an order of the Hardin Circuit Court denying his motion for RCr 11.42 relief. Pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement, Hamilton’s indictment was amended to add an addition charge. He argued below that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in allowing Hamilton to plead guilty to the amended indictment. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the order on appeal.

Hampton Com, 2003-CA-001450--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Daniel Reese Hampton has appealed from the final judgment and order of imprisonment of the Pike Circuit Court entered on July 3, 2003, which revoked his pretrial diversion and sentenced him, pursuant to his guilty plea, to one year in prison for the offense of flagrant nonsupport.1 Having concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Hampton, we affirm.2

Hannaford v Com., 2003-CA-002751 -- Not Published ;Affirming -- PDF

This consolidated appeal arises from the murder of Larry Keith Goins in Whitley County on May 9, 2001. Madeline Hannaford brings this Appeal No. 2003-CA-002751-MR from a December 12, 2003, order denying her Ky. R. Crim. P. (RCr) 11.42 motion to vacate her sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years. Jeffery Allen pro se brings Appeal No. 2004-CA-001017-MR from a May 10, 2004, order denying his “motion” for declaration of rights. We affirm. Appeal No. 2003-CA-002751-MR Hannaford was indicted upon the offenses of robbery in the first degree, and complicity to commit murder by aiding and assisting Jeffery Allen in killing Larry Keith Goins. As a result of a plea bargain, Hannaford pleaded guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970), to the charges of first-degree robbery and complicity to commit murder. In exchange, Hannaford received a 1 Senior Judge Joseph R. Huddleston sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the Chief Justice pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and Kentucky Revised Statutes 21.580.

Hardin v Com, 2003-CA-002164 -- Not To Be Published; Vacating and Remanding -- PDF

Aaron Hardin appeals from an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court, which held that he was statutorily ineligible for shock probation because of his conviction for wanton murder. Hardin appeals, arguing that he is eligible for shock probation because he was convicted as a youthful offender under KRS Chapter 640, which specifically authorizes shock probation for youthful offenders, regardless of the offense. The Commonwealth has moved to dismiss this appeal, arguing that even though the court's reasoning was faulty, Hardin's motion was untimely because it should have been made when he was first committed to the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice after his conviction, and that even if timely it is not properly the subject of an appeal, because the shock probation statute prohibits an appeal from the denial of shock probation. We deny the Commonwealth's motion, vacate the order of the circuit court and remand the matter for a determination of the merits of Hardin's motion for shock probation.

Harper v Com, 2004-CA-000751 -- Not To Be Published; Reversing and Remanding -- PDF

Walter Harper, Jr. was charged with receiving stolen property over $300 and being a second-degree persistent felony offender. A jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to a maximum of ten years’ imprisonment. The question before us on appeal is whether a comment made by the Commonwealth at trial regarding Harper’s alleged prior bad acts created undue prejudice. We believe the prosecution’s statement was inappropriate, but the court’s admonition to the jury cured any negative effect the comment may have had. So we affirm.

Harper V Com , 2003-CA-002447 -- Not To Be Published;Affirming -- PDF

Inmate Clarence T. Harper appeals from an order of the Fayette Circuit Court denying his petition for declaratory judgment requesting that, pursuant to House Bill 269 (H.B. 269), he be awarded credit towards his remaining unexpired sentence for time spent on parole. As Harper is not entitled to credit under the provision at issue, we affirm.

Harper v Com, 2004-CA-001013 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Duane Harper, pro se, appeals from a March 26, 2004 order of the Lyon Circuit Court denying his motion for relief pursuant to RCr2 11.42. We affirm.

Harpring v Com,2004-CA-000898 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Jerel Harpring appeals the trial court’s decision to revoke his felony probation. He argues that the revocation was unconstitutional and that the presiding judge should have recused herself. We disagree with his contentions and affirm the decision of the circuit court.

Harris V Com, 2004-CA-000823--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Raymond A. Harris entered a conditional plea of guilty (RCr 8.09) to the charge of possession of a controlled substance, first degree; he was sentenced to one year, enhanced to five years upon the finding that he was a persistent felon, second degree. He appeals from that conviction, arguing that his motion to suppress should have been granted. We disagree, and affirm.

Harris v Com, 2003-CA-001857 -- To Be Published ; Affirming in Part, Reversing and Remanding in Part - -- PDF

In these combined appeals, Lonnie Harris argues that he should be granted a new trial following his conviction in the Casey Circuit Court. Harris was convicted of burglary in the first degree and theft by unlawful taking following a jury trial. He was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed by the Kentucky Supreme Court (2001-SC-0171-MR, August 22, 2002). Subsequently, Harris argued in a motion pursuant to CR 60.02, filed December 13, 2002, that he is entitled to a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence under CR 60.02(b), and fraud (CR 60.02(d)), a void judgment (CR 60.02(e)), or other reason of extraordinary nature (CR 60.02(f)). He additionally claimed a right to relief based on newly discovered evidence pursuant to CR 60.02(b). Harris also filed a motion pursuant to RCr 11.42 claiming a right to relief because his counsel rendered ineffective assistance in the court below. The trial court denied both the CR 60.02 and RCr 11.42 motions. We affirm the trial court’s finding that counsel’s assistance was not ineffective. However, we agree with Harris that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a new trial under CR 60.02(f). Thus, we reverse and remand.

Harrsion v Com., 2004-CA-002043 -- Not Published ;Affirming -- PDF

Gary Edward Harrison, pro se, appeals from an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court denying his motion for additional credit for jail-time served. We affirm.

Harvell v Com, 2003-CA-001527 -- Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Anthony G. Harvell appeals pro se from a Jefferson Circuit Court order that denied his Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02 motion seeking relief from a judgment convicting him of several criminal offenses. Because we agree with the circuit court that Harvell has not provided the grounds necessary to invoke the extraordinary relief available under CR 60.02, we affirm the order.

Hawks v Com, 2004-CA-000746 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Paul Hawks appeals from an order of the Kenton Circuit Court denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42. At issue is whether an attorney who recommends a guilty plea to an amended lesser offense which the defendant could not be found guilty of renders ineffective assistance. The facts in the case at hand establish that Hawks could have been convicted of a Class C felony; however, he was allowed to plead guilty to a Class D felony. Consequently, the trial court correctly decided that Hawks’ trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance.

Hayden V Com, 2004-CA-000510--Not To Be Published; Reversing and Remanding -- PDF

Paul Hayden appeals from an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court denying his motion for shock probation. He contends that the Commonwealth’s objection to the motion was a violation of a plea bargain agreement. We disagree and affirm.

Hays v Com, 2004-CA-000727 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Michael William Hays appeals from a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court reflecting a jury verdict of guilty on charges of fourth-degree assault – third or subsequent offense, and second-degree persistent felony offender. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

Heard V Com, 2003-CA-002611--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s RCr 11.42 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate and discover that one of appellant’s prior felony convictions (for persistent felony offender purposes) was actually a misdemeanor for which appellant had served out his sentence more than five years before commission of the present offenses. Because the record refutes appellant’s allegation that the prior conviction was a misdemeanor and because only one prior felony conviction needs to be within five years of the present offense pursuant to KRS 532.080(3)(c)1, we affirm the denial of the RCr 11.42 motion without a hearing.

Helm v Com, 2004-CA-000501 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Terry G. Helm brings this pro se appeal from a January 8, 2004, order of the Lyon Circuit Court denying his Ky. R. Civ. P. (CR) 60.02 motion to modify the final judgment entered on his guilty plea to robbery in the first degree. We affirm.

Helm v Com, 2004-CA-000396 -- Not to be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

In 1995, in Daviess Circuit Court, Vincente Bernardo Helm was charged with numerous felonies in four separate indictments, 95-CR-00002, 95-CR-00050, 95-CR-00127 and 95-CR-00163. On June 19, 1995, Helm entered a plea, pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford,2 to the felonies contained in the various indictments after accepting the Commonwealth’s plea offer in which the prosecutor agreed to recommend that Helm serve an aggregate sentence of twenty years in prison. On October 31, 1996, Helm filed a motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42, claiming that his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance. Helm’s motion was denied on December 12, 1996. Some seven years later, on January 20, 2004, Helm filed a motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02(f).

Helton v Com, 2004-CA-000253--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Keith Helton appeals from his conviction and sentence to two and one-half years in prison for the offense of criminal possession of a forged prescription in violation of KRS1 218A.284. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying Helton’s motion for a directed verdict. We conclude that it did not, and we thus affirm.

Helton v Com, 2004-CA-001232 -- Not to be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Charles Helton appeals from the denial of his motion under Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02 for extraordinary relief from his life sentence for two counts of first-degree rape. The Pulaski Circuit Court summarily denied his motion for relief. Helton, pro se, appeals, arguing that he is entitled to relief because he was sedated for over twenty years and not competent to raise these claims until recently. He claims that evidence of two doctors' reports which would show that the child victims had not been sexually active in 1978 or 1979 had been concealed from him at the time of trial. We disagree that he is entitled to relief on this basis.

Hembree v Com, 2003-CA-001304 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

James M. Hembree appeals from a judgment of the Bell Circuit Court wherein he was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced to one year in prison. The issue is whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. We believe it was, and thus affirm.

Henderson v Com, 2004-CA-000925 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Gregory Henderson brings this appeal from an April 8, 2004, judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance, public intoxication, and with being a first-degree persistent felony offender. We affirm.

Hendrickson v Com.,2004-CA-002538 -- Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Earnest Dean Hendrickson was tried by jury and found guilty of manufacturing and possession of methamphetamine (enhanced by possession of a firearm), and felony and misdemeanor possession of other controlled substances. His sentences totaled eighteen years’ imprisonment. He appeals.

Hendrix v Com, 2004-CA-000842 -- Not Published ; Affirming - -- PDF

Travis Jay Hendrix appeals from his conviction for second degree arson for starting a fire at the home of Wayne and Peggy Lewis, a bi-racial couple. The sole basis for Hendrix’s appeal is that the trial court erroneously allowed the introduction of inappropriate KRE1 404(b) evidence. On review, we affirm.

Hensley v Com, 2004-CA-001560 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Jesse Hensley (Hensley), appeals Pro Se the Harlan Circuit Court’s denial of his motion pursuant to RCr 11.42. The Harlan Circuit Court’s ruling is affirmed. Hensley was charged with assaulting his wife, causing acute peritonitis that eventually led to her death. Hensley was convicted of wanton murder. He asserts that years after his conviction a relative made him aware that the Commonwealth had offered him a plea bargain agreement.

Henson v Com, 2004-CA-000849 --To be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Jacob Henson appeals from a judgment of conviction following his conditional plea of guilty2 to two drug possession charges and a charge of flagrant non-support in which he reserved the right to appeal the circuit court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence. Henson claims an anonymous tip given to the police indicating that he was in possession of drugs did not provide the officers with probable cause to stop the vehicle in which he was a passenger. Because we conclude that the circuit court used the proper standard?that of reasonable suspicion?and did not err in denying the motion, we affirm.

Hernandez v Com., 2004-CA-001579 -- Not to be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

By judgment entered January 21, 2003, the Clinton Circuit Court convicted Georgi Hernandez, pursuant to his guilty plea, of first-degree unlawful transaction with a minor under sixteen years old, a class B felony,1 and sentenced him to ten years in prison, the minimum sentence for a felony of that class. Hernandez appeals from the circuit court’s July 10, 2004, order denying his RCr 11.42 motion for relief from that judgment. He contends that trial counsel neglected a viable defense and thus rendered ineffective assistance and further contends that the trial court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on that claim. We agree with the trial court, however, that the record refutes Hernandez’s ineffective assistance claim and therefore affirm.

Hicks v Com, 2004-CA-000271 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Erick Hicks challenges as erroneous a judgment convicting him of the offenses of theft by unlawful taking over $300, possession of burglary tools, and being a persistent felon in the first degree. Alleging the denial of his right to a fair trial, appellant advances six arguments for reversal: 1) that there was proof that the verdict was tainted when the jury foreman informed the trial judge after they had been dismissed that the jury had given little thought to the value of the property taken; 2) that it was error to allow an unreliable valuation of the stolen items to be presented to the jury; 3) that the police failed to maintain a chain of custody or properly inventory the stolen property; 4) that he was entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal on the charge of possession of burglary tools; 5) that he was the victim of racial bias and selective enforcement in the manner in which he was charged; and 6) that he was entitled to a mistrial following a witness’s statement concerning a matter the trial judge had ruled inadmissible as a prior bad act. We affirm.

Hightower v Com, 2004-CA-002539 -- Not Published ; Affirming 2004-CA-002539-MR & Dismissing Appeal 2004-CA-002543-MR -- PDF

James Dale Hightower separately appeals from orders of the McCracken Circuit Court denying his motions for production of records and to vacate his conviction pursuant to RCr 11.42. Hightower has failed to file a timely appeal from the trial court’s denial of his records motion, and therefore, we must dismiss this appeal. We also find that the record clearly refutes Hightower's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Hence, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Hightower’s RCr 11.42 motion.

Hill v Com, 2003-CA-001496--Not To Be Published; Reversing -- PDF

James Brandon Hill has appealed from a final judgment entered by the Carroll Circuit Court on July 1, 2003, following a jury verdict finding him guilty of the offense of tampering with physical evidence.1 Having concluded that Hill was entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal on the charge of tampering with physical evidence and that the jury should have been instructed on attempted tampering with physical evidence, we reverse his conviction and one-year prison sentence. We further conclude that the imposition of a $1,000.00 fine on Hill was not authorized by law.

Hines v Com, 2004-CA-000545 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Willie Ray Hines brings this appeal from a March 11, 2004, judgment of the Logan Circuit Court upon a jury verdict finding appellant guilty of theft by failure to make required distribution of property (Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 514.070). We affirm.

Hodge v Com, 2004-CA-001380 -- Not Published ; Vacating and Remanding -- PDF

William Hodge appeals from a May 20, 2004, order of the Hickman Circuit Court summarily denying his RCr 11.42 motion for post-conviction relief. Hodge asserts that, due to counsel’s ineffective assistance, he pled guilty to a charge for which there was no factual basis. Because the record does not clearly refute Hodge’s assertion, we vacate and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

Hogue v Com, 2003-CA-001144--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Anthony A. Hogue, Jr., appeals from an order of the Henderson Circuit Court denying his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas to criminal charges. His appeal is not supported by any credible argument, and we thus affirm.

Holland v Com.,2004-CA-001986 -- Not To Be Published ; Vacating and Remanding -- PDF

Appellant Cassandra Holland was convicted by a McCracken County jury of manslaughter in the first degree and arson in the third degree. The facts at trial showed that appellant set her husband on fire by throwing gasoline on him and lighting it with a match. The sole issue appealed is whether appellant should be considered a violent offender for purposes of limiting her parole eligibility, KRS 439.3401, or whether she is exempted from that status by virtue of being a victim of domestic violence. Appellant, and the Kentucky Domestic Violence Association as amicus curiae, assert that she is precisely the type of individual the General Assembly had in mind when it established that domestic violence victims who kill their abusers are exempt from the parole restrictions of the violent offender statute.

Hollins v Com., 2004-CA-000687 --Not Published ;Affirming -- PDF

Taurus Hollins has appealed from a final judgment and sentence of imprisonment from the Logan Circuit Court entered on March 9, 2004, convicting him of three counts of trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree1 and being a persistent felony offender in the second degree (PFO II)2 and sentencing him to prison for 15 years. Having concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hollins’s motion for a mistrial after a witness testified regarding other uncharged crimes allegedly committed by him, that evidence of laboratory results regarding the controlled substances should not have been suppressed due to delay in production of the lab report, that Hollins was not entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal based upon insufficient evidence, and that the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s closing argument was not improper, we affirm.

Hollingsworth v Com, 2003-CA-002563 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Demarcus Hollingsworth appeals from an order of the Madison Circuit Court overruling his motion to suppress evidence and statements taken from him after his arrest. Hollingsworth contends that officers lacked probable cause to arrest him without a warrant. Probable cause to arrest Hollingsworth existed after officers were able to corroborate -2- tips predicting his future behavior. Thus, the judgment of the Madison Circuit Court is affirmed.
Holt V Com , 2003-CA-001329 -- Not To Be Published;Affirming -- PDF
Theron Holt entered a conditional guilty plea to lesser offenses after being indicted with three codefendants in connection with a robbery. Holt argues that the indictment against him should have been dismissed due to prosecutorial misconduct because the prosecutor entered into a plea agreement with one of the co-defendants that required the co-defendant to “not attempt to provide exculpatory evidence” in Holt’s case. Although the choice of words used by the Commonwealth in its plea agreement with the co-defendant was less than desirable, we conclude, having reviewed the record as a whole, that Holt’s rights were not violated and that the prosecutor did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct. Thus, we affirm.

Hooper v Com., 2004-CA-001554 -- Not to be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Appellant Shalako Kwabene Hooper appeals the order of the Jefferson Circuit Court which denied his motion to alter, amend or vacate his sentence pursuant to RCr 11.42. Hooper pled guilty in May 2002 in the Jefferson Circuit Court to trafficking in a controlled substance (cocaine) in the first degree while in possession of a firearm, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, illegal possession of drug paraphernalia while in possession of a firearm, illegal possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) while in possession of a firearm, and being a persistent felony offender in the second degree.

Horn v Com, 2003-CA-002006--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Ronald Horn appeals from the decisions of the Henry Circuit Court and the Oldham Circuit Court denying his petitions for extraordinary relief under RCr 11.42 and Civil Rule 60.02. Horn was on probation for sexual offenses in both Henry and Oldham counties, and his probation in both counties was revoked for new offenses in Oldham County. Horn claimed in his motion for relief that the Commonwealth did not properly seek revocation of his probation within ninety days of the grounds for revocation coming to light, and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the revocation on those grounds. The circuit court denied Horn's motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Because the applicable rule allows the Commonwealth prosecutorial discretion to give notice of a possible violation of probation to the Department of Corrections, and because the revocation was ultimately based on Horn's conviction of new charges as well as violation of the terms of his probation, we affirm.

Horton v Com, 2004-CA-002191 -- Not Published ; Affirming - -- PDF

Bruce Horton appeals from an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court denying his motion pursuant to CR 60.02 for modification or reduction of his sentence. He asserts that the trial court erred by failing to consider the merits of his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence. Finding no error, we affirm.

Hoskins v Com, 2003-CA-002787--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Gary Hoskins appeals from an order of the Harlan Circuit Court denying his motion for correction of sentence filed pursuant to CR1 60.02(f). We conclude that the circuit court properly denied Hoskins’s motion and thus affirm. As a result of an incident that occurred on May 19, 1990, Hoskins was indicted by a Harlan County grand jury on charges of murder, first-degree robbery, first-degree burglary, and first-degree arson. In accordance with a plea agreement

Hoskins v Com, 2003-CA-002787 -- To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Gary Hoskins appeals from an order of the Harlan Circuit Court denying his motion for correction of sentence filed pursuant to CR 1 60.02(f). We conclude that the circuit court properly denied Hoskins’s motion and thus affirm.

Humfleet v Com, 2003-CA-002340--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Clifford Humfleet (Humfleet), appeals the Laurel Circuit Court’s denial of his motion pursuant to RCr 11.42. Humfleet also appeals the circuit court’s denial of his request for an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the trial court’s ruling. Humfleet was convicted of the manufacturing of methamphetamine. He was sentenced to serve twenty years. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed Humfleet’s conviction on direct appeal.

Hounshell v Com, 2004-CA-002423 -- Not Published ; Affirming - -- PDF

Robbie D. Hounshell (Hounshell) appeals the order of the Lee Circuit Court denying his motion to amend the final judgment brought alternatively under RCr 10.10 for a clerical mistake or RCr 10.26 for a substantial error. Because we conclude there was no error -- either clerical or substantial -- we affirm.

Houp v Com, 2004-CA-001769 -- Not Published ;Affirming -- PDF

Matthew Howard, pro se, appeals from an order of August 18, 2003, of the Daviess Circuit Court which denied his post-conviction motion for relief filed pursuant to RCr 1 11.42. As we have found no error, we affirm.

Howard amd Adams v Com, 2004-CA-002477 -- Not To Be Published; Opinion and Order Dismissing -- PDF

Appellants, Jimmy Howard (Howard) and Dick Adams, Attorney (Adams), have petitioned for review of an opinion of the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) entered on November 5, 2004, which affirmed a decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rendered on July 9, 2004, that denied Adams an attorney fee for services rendered to Howard in obtaining an award of Retraining Incentive Benefits (RIB) against appellee Peabody Coal Company (Peabody).

Howell v Com., 2005-CA-000389 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Burrell Howell appeals from an order of the Henderson Circuit Court overruling, in part, his motion to be provided, without charge, various information pertaining to his case. The trial court granted that portion of Howell’s motion requesting that he be provided with a copy of the indictment in the case, but denied that portion of the motion seeking a copy of the emergency room records and DNA tests performed on him and the victims in the case, and a copy of the trial court’s January 20, 1998,2 order denying Howell’s petition for relief pursuant to RCr3 11.42. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

Hudson v Com.,2004-CA-002570 -- Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Coy Lee Hudson appeals from an opinion and order of the Fayette Circuit Court denying his motion for RCr 10.26 relief. He argues that the circuit court committed reversible error in failing to rule that the trial judge violated RCr 8.10 by initially accepting the Commonwealth’s recommended sentence but subsequently increasing it. Hudson maintains that he is entitled to an order reversing the matter and remanding with instructions that the trial court impose the recommended sentence. For the reason stated below, we affirm the order on appeal.

Hughes V Com., 2004-CA-001104 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Reginald Hughes appeals from a judgment entered by the Kenton Circuit Court after a jury verdict convicted him of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. Hughes argues that the statements he made to police should have been suppressed because the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him, that common law exceptions allowed him to have brief possession of a firearm, and he that received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no error, we affirm.

Hume v Com., 2004-CA-001634 -- Not To Be Published ; Reversing and Remanding -- PDF

Arvin Hume appeals from an order entered by the Monroe Circuit Court revoking his probation and imposing a 90-day sentence. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.

Hunt v Com, 2003-CA-000966--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Kenneth Hunt (Hunt) brings this appeal from an April 21, 2003, order of the Greenup Circuit Court. We affirm. Hunt was indicted in 1998 by the Greenup County Grand Jury upon charges of trafficking within 1000 yards of a school (98-CR-00116); and upon trafficking within 1000 yards of a school, possession of a hand gun by a convicted felon, unlawful possession of a police radio, possession of marijuana, and first-degree persistent felony offender (98-CR-00133); and escape in the second degree (98-CR-00183).

Hunt v Com, 2003-CA-000966--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Kenneth Hunt (Hunt) brings this appeal from an April 21, 2003, order of the Greenup Circuit Court. We affirm. Hunt was indicted in 1998 by the Greenup County Grand Jury upon charges of trafficking within 1000 yards of a school (98-CR-00116); and upon trafficking within 1000 yards of a school, possession of a hand gun by a convicted felon, unlawful possession of a police radio, possession of marijuana, and first-degree persistent felony offender (98-CR-00133); and escape in the second degree (98-CR-00183). He was arraigned on all charges, and entered into a plea agreement with the Commonwealth. Pursuant to the agreement, Hunt pled guilty on all of the above charges in exchange for the Commonwealth’s recommended sentence of six years’ imprisonment and dismissal of the persistent felony offender charge.

Hunt v Com, 2004-CA-001917 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Appellant Earl F. Hunt (Hunt) brings this appeal from a “Judgment on Conditional Guilty Plea2 and Sentence of Probation pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970),” entered by the Fayette Circuit Court on August 18, 2004. Hunt, originally indicted for felony possession of drug paraphernalia, pleaded guilty to an amended charge of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.3 His sixty-day jail sentence was probated for one year. Having concluded that the trial court properly denied Hunt’s motion to suppress, we affirm.

Hutchinson v Com, 2003-CA-002726 --Not To Be Published ; Affirming - -- PDF

A jury convicted Timothy Hutchinson (Hutchinson) of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. In this matter of right appeal, Hutchinson challenges the validity of the search warrant that law enforcement obtained to search Hutchinson’s residence where they discovered the handgun underlying his charge and conviction. In the lower court proceedings, the trial court heard the challenge on Hutchinson’s motion to suppress. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Because we find no error in the ruling of the trial court, we affirm.

Hutson v Com, 2002-CA-001603 -- To Be Published ; Reversing and Remanding - -- PDF

This matter is before the Court on remand by the Kentucky Supreme Court per order dated September 16, 2004. The Supreme Court vacated our opinion entered October 31, 2003, and ordered us to reach the merits of the above-styled appeal. After having considered the merits, we reverse and remand.
Return to the Main Table of Cases