2005 Unpublished Court of Appeals Opinions Index

Table of Cases
W

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.

Wade v Com, 2004-CA-000045 -- Not To Be Published; Vacating and Remanding -- PDF

John William Wade was sentenced to five (5) years’ imprisonment by the Fayette Circuit Court in a judgment entered on December 17, 2003 following his conditional guilty plea to charges of possession of a controlled substance first degree and being a persistent felony offender second degree. Wade appeals from the trial court’s July 21, 2003 order denying his motion to suppress evidence following a July 16, 2003 suppression hearing.

Wade V Com., 2004-CA-000588 -- Not Published ; Affirming - -- PDF

Gordon Wade appeals his conviction for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm arguing that the Commonwealth failed to prove at trial that he had physical possession of a firearm. After reviewing the record, we find that the Commonwealth introduced sufficient evidence to satisfy a reasonable juror beyond a reasonable doubt that Wade, a convicted felon, had constructive possession of a firearm. This evidence was enough to support the conviction. Thus, we affirm the judgment.

Waldrip v Com, 2004-CA-000741 -- Not to be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

In the early morning hours of December 6, 2004, Gordon Waldrip, a resident of Florida, was driving north on Kentucky Highway 121 in Calloway County. Just prior to 1:00 a.m., Kentucky State Trooper John Russell Boyd spotted Waldrip and began following him. Trooper Boyd decided to verify Waldrip’s Florida license plate through the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database. Although Waldrip’s license plate number was “G38FEV”, Trooper Boyd misread it as “638FEV” when he called it into dispatch. When the dispatcher ran the number “638FEV” through NCIC, it was designated as “not on file”. Upon learning this, Trooper Boyd decided to stop Waldrip since he suspected that either the automobile or the license plate was stolen. [snip] After Calloway District Court denied Waldrip’s motion to suppress, he appealed to Calloway Circuit Court, which affirmed the district court’s decision. Waldrip’s motion for discretionary review was granted by this Court. Waldrip relies heavily on State v. Kaufman.

Wall v Com, 2002-CA-002522--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

This case arises from four post-conviction motions filed by Billy Eugene Wall, Jr. (Wall) seeking relief from his conviction on eleven firearm possession charges and a persistent felony offender charge (PFO). These motions were stayed by the trial court pending a direct appeal of Wall’s conviction to this Court. The case has subsequently evolved into a procedural nightmare as Wall alleges to have brought these motions under Ky. R. Crim. P. (RCr) 10.02, while the court presumably treated the motions in its opinion and order as RCr 11.42 motions, notwithstanding that the court initially treated the motions as having been filed under RCr 10.02. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm.

Weathers v. Com, 2004-CA-000951 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Tommy L. Weathers appeals from a judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court which confirmed a jury verdict convicting him of second degree criminal possession of a forged instrument,1 and being a persistent felony offender in the first degree.2 The jury fixed his sentence at ten years’ imprisonment, which the trial court imposed. Weathers argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction and that his trial was rendered unfair due to prosecutorial misconduct and the introduction of inadmissible evidence. Finding no error, we affirm.

Welch v Com, 2003-CA-001940 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Jerry Welch appeals from an order of the Daviess Circuit Court denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02. He alleges that the trial court erroneously determined, without a hearing, that his attorney failed to communicate a plea offer to him. We find that Welch has not presented any evidence of a plea offer in his case. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Wentworth v Com, 2004-CA-000885 -- Not Published ; Affirming-- PDF

Anthony Wentworth appeals from an order of the Shelby Circuit Court denying his CR1 60.02 motion to void an earlier judgment sentencing him to a one-year prison term that was probated for five years. We affirm.

WentWorth v Com, 2004-CA-001989 -- Not Published ; Affirming - -- PDF

Anthony Wentworth appeals from an order of the Henry Circuit Court denying his request for post-conviction relief pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42. Wentworth argues that the trial court erroneously refused to find that his original plea agreement was illegal. This issue has already been resolved adversely by the Kentucky Supreme Court on direct appeal. He also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in determining, without an evidentiary hearing, that his trial counsel rendered effective assistance. Because Wentworth’s claim that he was coerced into entering a plea is refuted by the record, the trial court had no obligation to hold a hearing on his motion. Thus, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

Wentworth v Com.,2005-CA-000238 -- Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Anthony Wayne Wentworth appeals from two separate orders of the Henry Circuit Court in this consolidated appeal. He maintains that the trial court improperly denied his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief from judgment. For the reasons stated below, we affirm both orders.

West v Com, 2004-CA-002065 -- Not Published ; Affirming - -- PDF

Maurice West appeals from a judgment of conviction by the Jefferson Circuit Court. He argues that the trial court erred by failing to suppress evidence seized and statements he made following a warrantless search of his car, and by failing to properly instruct the jury on the charges of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon and being a persistent felony offender in the first degree. We conclude that the trial court’s suppression ruling was not clearly erroneous, and that the jury instructions were substantially correct. Hence, we affirm.

West v Com,2003-CA-002226 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Maurice West has appealed from the October 6, 2003, final judgment and sentence of the Jefferson CircuitCourt. Having concluded that West was in custody and properly convicted of escape in the second degree,2 we affirm.

White v Com, 2004-CA-000672 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

JThis is a pro se appeal from an order entered by the Jefferson Circuit Court denying appellant Samuel White’s motion seeking CR 60.02(a) and (f) relief from the judgment and sentence entered against him after he pled guilty to several charges. For the reasons stated hereafter, we affirm

White v Com., 2004-CA-002189 --Not To Be Published ; Reversing and Remanding -- PDF

Kelvin Lee White appeals from an October 5, 2004, judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. We reverse and remand.

Whittemore v Com, 2003-CA-002595 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Robert Whittemore appeals from the judgment of the Graves Circuit Court reflecting a jury verdict of guilty on one count each of first-degree possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) and possession of marijuana. Whittemore argues that he was entitled to a change of venue, that the trial judge should have recused himself, that he should have received a directed verdict, and that he is entitled to a new trial. For the reasons stated below, we find no error and affirm the judgment on appeal.

Whitesides v Com, 2004-CA-001533 -- Not Published ; Affirming - -- PDF

On January 26, 2004, the Warren District Court, Juvenile Division, held a hearing to decide whether Leroy Henderson Whiteside should be transferred to the Warren Circuit Court to be tried as a youthful offender. In finding that the Commonwealth had met its burden, the Warren District Court listed as the specific reason for transfer: [A]lleged offense involved robbery and assault. Based on child’s record and seriousness of this offense, transfer serves the interests of the child and the community, since services through juvenile justice system have proven unsuccessful. Whiteside was indicted the following March, and on June 29, 2004, he entered a plea of guilty to Robbery in the First Degree in exchange for the recommendation of a ten year sentence.

Wilkes v Com, 2004-CA-000635 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Paul Wilkes appeals from an order of the McCracken Circuit Court denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea without holding an evidentiary hearing. As we have found no error, we affirm.

Williams v Com, 2003-CA-000561--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Demetrius Williams was arrested for drug-related offenses in Christian County on March 5, 2002. The Circuit/District Clerk’s office opened case number 02-F-186 following his arrest; several people joined together to post a cash bond of $50,000 to secure his release. On April 26, 2002, the grand jury indicted Williams on the same charges; this indictment was assigned case number 02-CR-00120 in the circuit court. He was allowed to remain at large on the bond previously posted.

Williams v Com, 2003-CA-001358--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Gerald Conley Williams Jr. (Williams), appeals his McCracken Circuit Court conviction for criminal facilitation to first degree robbery. We affirm the Appellant’s conviction.

Williams v Com, 2004-CA-000992 -- Not Published ; Affirming - -- PDF

On March 31, 2004 a judgment of conviction and sentence was entered finding George Williams (Williams)1 guilty on three counts of reckless homicide and sentencing him to five years on each count to run consecutively. Williams raises five arguments for reversal of his conviction and sentence. We affirm.

Williams v Com., 2005-CA-000222 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

On October 3, 2001, Charles Raymond Williams fired a gunshot that missed his friend/girlfriend, Shawn Johnson. Police officers were already nearby when the shot was heard and observed Williams on the porch of his house with what appeared to be a handgun. Another witness heard the shot and saw Williams immediately thereafter with a pistol. A bullet hole was discovered in the neighboring house of Vivian Pope, who was asleep at the time of the shooting. Williams was convicted of two counts of first-degree wanton endangerment in Fayette Circuit Court. He received a sentence of four years’ imprisonment on each count, to be served consecutively. This Court affirmed the judgment on direct appeal. Case No. 2002-CA-000477-MR. Williams filed a motion for RCr 11.42 relief, which was denied without an evidentiary hearing. He now appeals.

Williams v Com, 2004-CA-000762 --Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

These appeals arising from the same criminal prosecution have been designated to be heard together and we have elected to resolve them in one opinion. Ronnie and Leona Williams, husband and wife, appeal their convictions for possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and possession of drug paraphernalia for which they were sentenced to five years’ imprisonment on the felony charge and twelve months on the misdemeanor, to be run concurrently. The primary issues, which are common to both appeals, focus upon 1) alleged discovery violations by the Commonwealth; 2) error in permitting introduction of evidence of prior bad acts; 3) error in allowing impermissible bolstering of the testimony of confidential informants; and 4) the cumulative effect of these errors. Appellant Ronnie Williams also complains that he was denied effective assistance of counsel by joint representation with his wife and that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of possession of either controlled substances or drug paraphernalia. Finding no reversible error in any of these contentions, we affirm the judgment of conviction in each appeal.

Wilson v Com, 2003-CA-001608 --Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Arickus Wilson appeals from a judgment of the Caldwell Circuit Court wherein he was convicted of three counts of trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree and sentenced to ten years in prison. We affirm.

Wilson v Com., 2004-CA-001557 --Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Maurice Wilson appeals from an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court denying his petition for writ of execution. We affirm.

W.N. A Child Under Eighteen v Com, 2004-CA-002579 -- Not Published ; Reversing and Remanding - -- PDF

This appeal is brought on behalf of W. N., a juvenile, maintaining that his admission of guilt to the offense of Criminal Trespass, First Degree, was constitutionally invalid under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969). We have reviewed the entire record, and listened to the audiotape of the proceeding in juvenile court, and must agree.

Woods v Com, 2004-CA-001296 -- Not Published ; Affirming - -- PDF

Charles Woods appeals from an order of the Clark Circuit Court denying his motion to suppress evidence. He claims that he was subjected to a warrantless seizure of his person without probable cause. We disagree, and affirm the trial court’s decision.

Woosley v Com, 2004-CA-001224 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

The appellant’s mother posted a $10,000.00 appeal bond that not only guaranteed appellant would show up in court but put conditions on his release. Appellant violated one or more of those conditions (but did not fail to appear) and the court not only revoked, but forfeited the entire bond. On appeal, the appellant contends the court abused its discretion in forfeiting the entire bond for anything less than a failure to appear. We opine that where the non-cash conditions of the release on bond are clear, the bond is subject to revocation, and to forfeiture for a breach of those conditions. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in forfeiting the entire bond, therefore, we affirm.

Woosley v Com., 2004-CA-000970 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

These appeals arising from the same circuit court action have been designated to be heard together and we have elected to dispose of them in one opinion. On March 16, 2004, appellant Sherrill Woosley entered a conditional plea of guilt to trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree, manufacturing methamphetamines, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of anhydrous ammonia in an unapproved container, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, preserving for our review in appeal number 2004-CA-000979 the question of the sufficiency of the affidavit of the police officer to support execution of a search warrant.

Wright, White and Hampton v Com, 2003-CA-002667--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Sylvia Wright, Rachel White, and Reed Hampton appeal from an order of the Franklin Circuit Court granting summary judgment in favor of the Commonwealth. Appellants filed an action alleging that they had been the victims of race-based discrimination and denial of opportunities for promotion during their employment with the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) as welfare fraud investigators. The circuit court found that Hampton failed to establish a prima facie case for discrimination and that Wright and White failed to show that the OAG’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for failing to promote them were a pretext to justify racial discrimination. We agree; therefore, the decision of the circuit court is affirmed.

White V Com, 2004-CA-000342--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

On January 27, 2003, Marcia White was struck about the head and face with a heavy instrument. She named Larry White, her brother-in-law, as the perpetrator. The incident happened at a party, and, although there were many present, few were sober enough to recount what happened. Those with sufficient memories collaborated Marcia’s version of events. Marcia lost her left eye; she now wears a prosthesis in that socket.

Wolford v Com, 2003-CA-002399--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Jimmy Wolford appeals from an order of the Pike Circuit Court that denied his motion for relief brought pursuant to RCr1 11.42. Alleging ineffective assistance of his defense counsel, he seeks to vacate a 1999 judgment of conviction for murder that imposed a forty-year prison sentence. As we have found no error in the order of the trial court denying relief, we affirm.
Return to the Main Table of Cases