2006 Unpublished Court of Appeals Opinions Index

Table of Cases
A

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.

Abney v Com.,2004-CA-002654 --Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

George Abney, Sr., appeals from a decision of the Edmonson Circuit Court denying his successive motion for post-conviction relief, pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42 without an evidentiary hearing. Abney, pro se, argues that the Commonwealth breached the plea agreement and that he was improperly convicted of conspiracy despite the acquittal of all co-defendants. We find that he is not entitled to relief and affirm the trial court.

Adams v Com., 2005-CA-000853 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Ramon Adams has appealed from the final judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court entered on March 24, 2005, which sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment pursuant to his conditional guilty plea to assault in the third degree.1 Having concluded that Adams was properly prosecuted under sections (1)(a) and (b) of KRS 508.025, we affirm.

Addis v Com., 2004-CA-002505 -- Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Michael Howard Addis appeals the entry of judgment and sentence upon a plea of guilty to counts involving possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. Addis contends that the guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. Because upon entering his plea of guilty Addis waived his right to appeal his judgment and sentence, we affirm.

Alexander V Com.,2004-CA-001859 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Douglas Alexander appeals from the judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court entered on a conditional guilty plea to charges of possession of a methamphetamine precursor, possession of drug paraphernalia and being a persistent felony offender in the second degree. Counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), wherein he stated that he could find no appealable issue and requested additional time to allow his client to file a supplemental pro se brief if he chose to do so. Alexander has filed no supplemental brief. The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the court correctly denied Alexander’s motion to dismiss the persistent felony offender count because the prior offense was the subject of a not-yet-completed diversion. We affirm.

Allen v Com.,2005-CA-000648 --Not Published, Reversing -- PDF

Keith Devon Everett Allen (formerly known as Keith Devon Everett) appeals to this Court from Hardin Circuit Court’s denial of his RCr 11.42 motion for postconviction relief. Allen alleges ineffective assistance of counsel and also claims the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over the charged offense. After having been convicted of sodomy and sexual abuse and having served the prescribed sentence, Allen was released from prison in January 1997.

Allen v Com, 2004-CA-002529--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Appellant Jeffrey W. Allen appeals his conviction by a Muhlenberg County jury of one count of possession of methamphetamine and of being a persistent felony offender in the first degree. His sole allegation on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the charge of possession of methamphetamine.

Allen v Com., 2005-CA-001284 --Not Published ; Reversing -- PDF

Deborah Miller Allen (“Allen”) brings this appeal from a conditional plea of guilty under Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr.) 8.09 entered in the Magoffin Circuit Court on March 17, 2005. For the reasons stated below, we reverse.

Allgeier v Com.,2005-CA-001530 -- Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Keith Allgeier appeals from an order of the Christian Circuit Court denying his motion for RCr 11.42 relief. Citing numerous alleged failures of trial counsel, Allgeier maintains that the circuit court improperly failed to find that his counsel did not provide effective assistance at trial. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the order on appeal.

Alvis v Com.,2005-CA-001008 --Not Published,Reversing -- PDF

Larry Ray Alvis (Alvis) brings this appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court, entered April 13, 2005, sentencing him to one-year imprisonment pursuant to a conditional plea of guilty3 on the charge of failure, as a registered sex offender, to give timely notice of his change of address pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 17.510. As a condition of the plea, a first-degree persistent felony offender4 (PFO I) count was dismissed. Pursuant to the conditional guilty plea, Alvis reserved for appeal the issue of whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the action, contending that he was subject to a penalty of a misdemeanor, not a felony. We agree and reverse.

Angel v Com., 2005-CA-000819 -- Not Published ;Affirming -- PDF

Danny Angel, pro se, has appealed from the January 11, 2005, order of the Mercer Circuit Court which denied his pro se motion to vacate judgment pursuant to RCr1 11.42, without holding an evidentiary hearing. Having concluded that Angel’s plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and that the trial court did not err in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing to address his motions, we affirm.

Ard v Com.,2005-CA-000531 --Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Steven Ard appeals from a judgment and sentence entered by the Campbell Circuit Court after the court refused to permit Ard to withdraw his guilty plea. For the reasons stated hereafter, we affirm.

Honorable Armstrong and Rowland v Com.,2005-CA-000495 -- Published, Affirming -- PDF

Jefferson District Court Judge Donald E. Armstrong, Jr., and Brian Michael Rowland, the real party in interest, appeal from an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court granting a Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by the Commonwealth. The issue involves whether, in light of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Commonwealth is entitled to obtain Rowland’s blood test results from the University of Louisville Hospital for use in prosecuting him for the offense of driving under the influence (DUI). We conclude that the circuit court did not err in granting the petition, and we thus affirm.

Asher v Com., 2005-CA-000178 -- Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Donald J. Asher appeals from a final judgment of the Pendleton Circuit Court, sentencing him to serve eight years for one count of first degree trafficking in a controlled substance (methamphetamine). Asher was arrested after police obtained a warrant to search his house and discovered various drugs and drug paraphernalia. Asher moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the police officers had been operating under an invalid search warrant and had failed to allow sufficient time between knocking and announcing their presence and entering his home. After hearing testimony and oral arguments, the trial court denied the motion to suppress. Asher entered a conditional plea of guilty, thereby reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion. We affirm.

Ashworth v Com.,2005-CA-000728 --Not Published,Affirming -- PDF

Timothy Ashworth appeals pro se from the denial of his motion seeking post-conviction relief pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02. Ashworth entered guilty pleas to charges of public intoxication, possession of a controlled substance (cocaine), possession of drug paraphernalia and to being a second-degree persistent felony offender. McCracken Circuit Court sentenced Ashworth to a total of seven years’ imprisonment. Ashworth claims he is entitled CR 60.02 relief because his plea was involuntary. His counsel, he says, rendered ineffective assistance when he failed to argue that the charges against him subjected him to double jeopardy.
Return to the Main Table of Cases