2005 Unpublished Court of Appeals Opinions Index |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.
Jackson V Com, 2003-CA-002379--Not To Be Published;
Affirming -- PDF
Jackson v Com, 2004-CA-000368
-- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF
Jackson v Com, 2004-CA-000368
-- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF
Jameson v Com, 2001-CA-000090--Not To Be
Published; Affirming -- PDF
Jenkins, Jr. v Com., 2004-CA-001487
-- Not Published ; Affirming in Part, Vacating in Part, and Remanding
-- PDF
Jett v Com., 2004-CA-001470
-- Not Published ; Affirming
-- PDF
Johnson v Com, 2004-CA-000349 -- Not To Be
Published; Affirming -- PDF
Johnson v Com, 2003-CA-002745 -- Not To Be
Published; Affirming -- PDF
Johnson v Com, 2004-CA-000647 -- Not To Be
Published;Affirming -- PDF
Johnson v Com, 2004-CA-000726
-- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF
Johnson v Com, 2004-CA-001375 -- Not Published ;Affirming -- PDF
Johnson v Com,2004-CA-001083
-- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF
Johnson v Com, 2004-CA-000879
-- Not Published ; Affirming -
-- PDF
Johnson v Com., 2004-CA-001960
-- Published ;Affirming
-- PDF
Johnston v Com, 2003-CA-001327--Not To Be
Published; Reversing -- PDF
Jones v Com, 2004-CA-000103 -- Not To Be
Published; Affirming -- PDF
Jones v Com, 2004-CA-000001 -- Not To Be
Published; Affirming -- PDF
Jones v Com, 2004-CA-000952
-- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF
Jones v Com, 2004-CA-001391
-- Not to be Published ; Affirming -- PDF
Jones V Com., 2004-CA-000700
-- Not Published ; Affriming -
-- PDF
Jones v Com, 2004-CA-000952
-- Not Published ; Reversing and Remanding -
-- PDF
Jones III v Com., 2003-CA-002422
-- Not Published ; Affirming
-- PDF
Jones v Com.,2004-CA-001952
-- Not To Be Published ; Affirming
-- PDF
J.V. v Com, 2003-CA-001928-mr
-- Not Published ; Affirming-
-- PDF
Appellant, Kenneth Jackson (Jackson), directly
appeals his Calloway Circuit Court conviction for one count of
first degree trafficking in a controlled substance, a violation
of KRS 218A.1412. We affirm the conviction.
Informant Reed, a cousin of Appellant Jackson, told
Jackson he was trying to obtain some crack cocaine. Reed did
not request that Jackson buy him crack. Jackson informed Reed
that he could get some crack cocaine for him. Reed provided Jackson with money, and Jackson returned with a “rock” of crack.
Donnell Antoine Jackson brings this pro se
appeal from a January 21, 2004, Order of the McCracken Circuit
Court summarily denying his Ky. R. Crim. P. (RCr) 11.42 motion
to vacate sentence. We affirm.
Donnell Antoine Jackson brings this pro se
appeal from a January 21, 2004, Order of the McCracken Circuit
Court summarily denying his Ky. R. Crim. P. (RCr) 11.42 motion
to vacate sentence. We affirm.
This matter is before us on remand by the
Kentucky Supreme Court by opinion and order dated December 8,
2004. The Court vacated our opinion rendered October 17, 2003,
and ordered us to reconsider it in light of Cosby v.
Commonwealth, 147 S.W.3d 56 (Ky. 2004). Upon reconsideration,
we affirm.
This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s RCr 11.42 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Appellant argues that his counsel on his guilty plea was ineffective for failing to advise him of the availability of the 1998 amendment to KRS 532.110 to mitigate his sentence. Because the record established that appellant’s counsel on the guilty plea rendered ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to so advise appellant, we vacate appellant’s sentence and remand the matter for re-sentencing pursuant to KRS 532.110(1)(c).
This is an appeal from the Kenton Circuit Court’s judgment and order sentencing appellant, Marlene Jett, to three years’ pretrial diversion, ninety days conditional discharge for two years, and a $250 fine pursuant to Jett’s conditional guilty plea to charges of possession of a controlled substance in the first and third degrees. On appeal, Jett contends that the circuit court erred in not granting her motion to suppress. For the following reasons, we affirm.
As we directed on remand in an unpublished
opinion in Johnson v. Commonwealth, the circuit court conducted
an evidentiary hearing in Corey L. Johnson’s pending RCr 2 11.42
motion on the limited issue of whether defense counsel discussed
a potential extreme emotional disturbance (EED) defense with Johnson before his guilty plea and whether any actual prejudice
occurred should defense counsel’s performance be deemed
deficient. In the order that followed, the circuit court denied
Johnson’s motion for RCr 11.42 relief, finding that defense
counsel had indeed discussed an EED defense with Johnson before
the guilty plea and that there was no evidence that defense
counsel’s performance was deficient. Johnson has appealed from
that ruling. We affirm.
Lashawn Johnson appeals from a judgment of the
Jefferson Circuit Court, entered November 21, 2003, convicting
him of receiving stolen property1 and sentencing him to four
years in prison. Johnson was accused of possessing a car he
knew was stolen. He contends that his trial was rendered unfair
by the admission into evidence of his un-Mirandized statement to
a police officer, by the exclusion of evidence tending to show
that he did not know the car was stolen, and by a court clerk’s misstatement concerning his criminal history. He also contends
that he was entitled to a new trial when a witness who had
failed to appear subsequently became available. We affirm.
Dwayne Johnson appeals pro se from an order of
the Campbell Circuit Court denying his motion seeking RCr 11.42
relief. Johnson claims in this appeal that he was afforded
ineffective assistance at trial. After reviewing the record, we
affirm.
This is a pro se appeal from an order entered
by the Christian Circuit Court denying appellant Antonio
Johnson’s motion seeking CR 60.02 relief from the judgment and
sentence entered against him after he entered Alford pleas to first-degree arson and three counts of capital murder. For the reasons stated hereafter, we affirm.
Terron Johnson appeals from an order of the
Henderson Circuit Court following his conditional plea of guilty
to one count each of first-degree possession of a controlled
substance (cocaine) and possession of marijuana. Prior to
pleading guilty, Johnson unsuccessfully filed a motion to
suppress the introduction of evidence discovered during a police
search of his automobile. He now appeals the order that denied
his motion to suppress. After our review of the record, we
-2-
affirm both the order denying the motion to suppress and the
judgment entered upon the guilty plea.
At the suppression hearing conducted by the trial
Robert Johnson appeals, pro se, from an order of
the Jefferson Circuit Court denying his CR1 60.02 motion for
relief from his judgment of conviction. We affirm.
Anthony Johnson appeals from a judgment of the Graves Circuit Court convicting him of trafficking in cocaine and sentencing him to ten years’ imprisonment. He argues that the trial court erroneously allowed the prosecution to comment on his post-arrest silence, improperly refused to allow cross-examination of the confidential informants, and failed to hold a competency hearing after ordering a mental evaluation on him. We find that the only error committed by the trial court, the failure to hold a competency hearing, was harmless and, thus, the judgment is affirmed.
James Ray Johnson appeals from the Ohio Circuit Court’s denial of his motion to vacate its judgment of conviction and sentence pursuant to RCr 11.42 and his motion for the trial judge’s recusal. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Gary Lynn Johnston appeals from an order of the
Jefferson Circuit Court denying his motion for post-conviction
relief pursuant to Ky. R. Crim. P. (RCr) 11.42. Johnston
contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel in
connection with his entry of a guilty plea to charges involving
the sexual abuse of an eight-year old child. We conclude that Johnston did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel, and
thus, we affirm.
Deshane Jones appeals from a judgment of the
Montgomery Circuit Court convicting him of third-degree rape and
of being a second-degree persistent felony offender (PFO II).
We affirm.
Darrell Eugene Jones pled guilty and was
sentenced by the McCreary Circuit Court to eight years in prison
on two counts of trafficking in a controlled substance. The
facts indicate that Jones drove his truck to the residence of a
confidential informant and therein sold the controlled
substances. Pursuant to the Commonwealth’s motion, the court
also ordered Jones’s 1999 Ford Ranger pickup truck forfeited to
the Lake Cumberland Area Drug Task Force. Jones appealed from this order, and we affirm.
Bobby A. Jones brings this appeal from an April
26, 2004, judgment of the Montgomery Circuit Court upon a jury
verdict finding him guilty of possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon and sentencing him to three years and six
months’ imprisonment. We affirm.
Gary Jones brings this appeal from a July 8,
2004, judgment of the Montgomery Circuit Court sentencing him to
fifteen years’ imprisonment upon his conviction after a jury
trial on two counts of trafficking in a controlled substance,
second degree, and one count of being a persistent felony
offender, first degree. We affirm.
Charles A. Jones (Jones) entered a guilty plea to a number of charges stemming from several incidents of purse snatching. He appeals the order of the Jefferson Circuit Court denying his motion under RCr 11.42 to vacate or set aside his judgment. Jones argues on appeal that his defense counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Because we conclude that his claim is founded on a clerical mistake that the trial court rectified and the record conclusively refutes Jones’s
other arguments in support of his ineffective assistance claim, we affirm.
Bobby A. Jones brings this appeal from an April 26, 2004, judgment of the Montgomery Circuit Court upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and sentencing him to three years and six months’ imprisonment. We reverse and remand.
Floyd Mike Jones appeals from a judgment convicting him of incest, thirteen counts of third-degree sodomy, eight counts of third-degree rape and one count of bribing a witness for which he was sentenced to a total of ten years’ imprisonment. In support of his contention that he is entitled to a new trial, appellant argues that the trial judge erred in limiting the trial testimony of his DNA expert and in allowing the Commonwealth to introduce irrelevant and highly prejudicial pornographic images into evidence. Finding no reversible error in either contention, we affirm the judgment of conviction.
Norman Edwin Jones appeals the denial of his latest CR 60.02 motion based on alleged conflicts between one of his attorneys and some trial witnesses. We agree that it was error for the trial court to use the three-year statute of limitations in RCr 11.42(10) for Jones’s CR 60.02 motion. However, Jones’s motion was still untimely under CR 60.02(b) and (f). Hence, we affirm.
J.V. appeals from a judgment of the Clinton
Circuit Court finding him guilty of three counts of seconddegree
rape, one count of third-degree rape, four counts of
incest, and one count of first-degree sodomy and sentencing him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Appellant claims that the trial
court denied him the ability to present a defense by disallowing
certain evidence which may have accounted for his daughter’s
vaginal trauma. In addition, he complains that the evidence was
insufficient to prove first-degree sodomy and that the jury
instructions allowed the jurors to convict him of the remaining
charges without reaching a unanimous verdict. We disagree and,
thus, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Return
to the Main Table of Cases