2005 Unpublished Court of Appeals Opinions Index |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.
Neal v Com., 2004-CA-001462
-- Not Published ; Affirming
-- PDF
Nelson v Com, 2004-CA-000850
-- Not to be Published ; Affirming -- PDF
New v Com, 2003-CA-001732-- To Be
Published; Affirming -- PDF
Newcomb v Com, 2002-CA-002336
& 2002-CA-002367
-- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF
Newton v Com, 2004-CA-002094
-- Not Published ; Affirming -
-- PDF
Nichols v Com, 2004-CA-000634 -- Not To Be
Published; Vacating & Remanding -- PDF
Nichols v Com, 2004-CA-001023
-- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF
Nichols v Com., 2004-CA-001426
-- Published ; Affirming
-- PDF
Noble v Com, 2003-CA-002148--Not To Be Published;
Reversing -- PDF
Nordike v Com., 2004-CA-001500
--Not To Be Published ; Affirming
-- PDF
Appellant, Laterrence Neal (Neal), appeals the Jefferson Circuit Court’s denial of his motion to vacate his conviction. We affirm the trial court’s ruling on the post-conviction motions.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered by
the Scott Circuit Court after a jury convicted appellant Ronald
Ray Nelson of second-degree burglary and felony theft by
unlawful taking, and of being a first-degree persistent felony
offender. Nelson contends that the trial court erred by failing
to find that the evidence was insufficient to support his
conviction. For the reasons stated hereafter, we affirm.
Lake Cumberland Funeral Home (Lake
Cumberland), and its funeral director, Richard New, appeal from
that portion of a judgment of the Franklin Circuit Court of July
29, 2003, which affirmed a final order of the Kentucky Board of
Embalmers and Funeral Directors (the Board). The court upheld
the Board’s decision to sanction the appellants for permitting
unlicensed individuals to perform embalming services in violation of KRS1 316.030(1). The appellants argue that the
Board’s decision is arbitrary and that its findings of fact are
unsupported by substantial evidence.
These are related pro se appeals from orders
of the Carroll Circuit Court denying Rodney Newcomb’s motions
seeking court records and RCr 11.42 relief.
Newcomb contends in Appeal No. 2002-CA-002336 that he
received ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with his plea of guilty to multiple drug-related charges in Action
No. 99-CR-66, and in connection with his plea of guilty to
second-degree escape and other drug-related charges in Action
No. 99-CR-77. Additionally, he contends that the trial court
abused its discretion by denying him an evidentiary hearing and
appointed counsel on his motion for RCr 11.42 relief, and that
the court erred by failing to supplement its order with written
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Kevin Lee Newton appeals from a judgment of the Grayson Circuit Court following a jury verdict convicting him of one count of third-degree assault and one count of disorderly conduct. Newton argues that he was unable to form the requisite intent to commit the assault and disorderlyconduct because he suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgment.
David Nichols appeals from the judgment of
the McCracken Circuit Court convicting him of second-degree
abuse and sentencing him to serve five years in prison. Nichols
alleges that the evidence was both incomplete and insufficient
to support his conviction for abuse of the victim, 11-month-old
Gage Kirk. He also argues that the trial court made several
evidentiary errors that deprived him of a fair trial. After a
careful review of the evidence and the applicable law, we conclude that the trial court erred in excluding evidence
tending to implicate the victim’s babysitter, David Darnell, as
the actual perpetrator of the crime. Therefore, we vacate and
remand.
Alfred Nichols appeals from an order of the
Jefferson Circuit Court denying his motion to withdraw a guilty
plea and sentencing him to ten years’ imprisonment. He argues
that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion
to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging that his attorney promised
him probation and that he was in fact innocent of the offenses to which he pled guilty. We affirm the trial court’s determination that Nichols’ plea was voluntary and that he was
not promised anything in exchange for his plea.
William Wells is a police officer with the City of Radcliff. When off duty, Wells works as a security guard in a Kroger store in Elizabethtown. Late at night on November 2, 2003, while working at Kroger, Wells noticed David Nichols purchasing what Wells considered an unusually large quantity of a cold remedy containing pseudoephedrine. Knowing that pseudoephedrine is an essential ingredient in the manufacture of methamphetamine, Wells notified the Elizabethtown Police Department. Officer Billy Boling was then dispatched to Kroger to investigate.
Eugene Noble entered a conditional plea of guilty
(RCr 8.09) to the charge of Possession of a Controlled
Substance, First Degree, reserving his right to appeal the
denial of his motion to suppress certain evidence against him.
Because we find that the evidence was obtained as a result of
the use of an invalid search warrant, we reverse.
Douglas C. Nordike is currently serving a ten year sentence for two counts of knowingly possessing anhydrous ammonia in other than an approved container (KRS 250.991) and one count of complicity to manufacture methamphetamine (KRS 218A.1432(1)(a) and KRS 502.020). He appeals, making five arguments. We affirm.
Return
to the Main Table of Cases