2006 Unpublished Court of Appeals Opinions Index

Table of Cases
C

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.

Cagle v Com.,2005-CA-000835 --Not Published ; Affirming in Part, Vacating in Part and Remanding -- PDF

Charles Brian Russell appeals from a judgment entered by the Jefferson Circuit Court after Russell sought to set aside his guilty plea. For the reasons stated hereafter, we reverse the court’s judgment and remand this matter for further proceedings.

Calloway V Com.,2005-CA-000589 -- Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Carl Calloway appeals from a judgment of the Daviess Circuit Court finding him guilty of first-degree sexual abuse and sentencing him to serve one year. He argues that the trial court improperly allowed rebuttal testimony on a collateral matter and that the Commonwealth failed to prove all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree and affirm the trial court.

Cansler v Com.,2005-CA-000759 -- Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Joanna Cansler appeals from the Harlan Circuit Court’s judgment sentencing her to twelve years’ imprisonment after a jury found her guilty of first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance (second offense). For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment.

Carneal v Com, 2004-CA-001534 -- Published ; Vacating and Remanding -- PDF

In October 1998, Michael Carneal pled guilty but mentally ill in McCracken Circuit Court to three counts of murder,1 five counts of attempted murder,2 and first-degree burglary.3 Carneal had taken several guns from a friend’s garage and had used one of them on the morning of December 1, 1997, to shoot eight of his young classmates at Heath High School in Paducah.

Carneal V Com.,2004-CA-001534 -- Published ; Vacating and Remanding -- PDF

In October 1998, Michael Carneal pled guilty but mentally ill in McCracken Circuit Court to three counts of murder,3 five counts of attempted murder,4 and first-degree burglary.5 Carneal had taken several guns from a friend’s garage and had used one of them on the morning of December 1, 1997, to shoot eight of his young classmates at Heath High School in Paducah. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court entered judgment on December 21, 1998, sentencing Carneal to life in prison without parole for at least twenty-five years. Because Carneal was a juvenile under sixteen years of age at the time of the shootings, this was the maximum allowable sentence.6 Carneal was remanded to the custody of juvenile authorities, where he remained until his eighteenth birthday on June 1, 2001, when he was resentenced as an adult to adult incarceration. Three years to the day later, on June 1, 2004, Carneal moved for relief from his judgment on the ground that his schizophrenia rendered him incompetent in October 1998 to plead guilty. By order entered June 30, 2004, the trial court denied relief, finding that Carneal’s motion was untimely and was otherwise refuted by the record. It is from that order that Carneal has appealed. Convinced that Carneal’s motion was timely filed after he became an adult and that it presents sufficient evidence of incompetence to warrant a hearing, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand for additional proceedings.

Carpenter V Com.,2004-CA-002469 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Clarence Carpenter appeals from the Jefferson Circuit Court’s judgment sentencing him to five years’ imprisonment after a jury found him guilty of first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance (crack cocaine). For the following reasons, we affirm.

Carpenter v Jailer, 2005-CA-000309 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Jeffery L. Carpenter brings this pro se appeal from a September 2, 2003, judgment on the pleadings of the Logan Circuit Court dismissing his complaint for damages under the open records act (Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 61.872- 61.884). We affirm.

Carpenter v Com., 2006-CA-000028 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Jeffery L. Carpenter brings this pro se appeal from a May 3, 2004, order of the Logan Circuit Court summarily denying his Ky. R. Crim. P. (RCr) 11.42 motion as time-barred. We affirm.

Carrender V Com.,2005-CA-001485 -- Not Published ; Reversing and Remanding -- PDF

Calvin Wayne Carrender appeals from a May 13, 2005, Pulaski Circuit Court order denying his motions to set aside his conviction pursuant to RCr 11.42 and to appoint counsel for him. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the record does not clearly refute Carrender’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Hence, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the motion.

Casebier v Com., 2006-CA-000208 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Jansan Casebier appeals from an order of the Daviess Circuit Court denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to CR2 60.02. Casebier contends that because the judgment in the present case does not address whether his twoyear sentence is to run concurrently or consecutively with a prior five-year conviction in Ohio Circuit Court, the sentences should be deemed to run concurrently pursuant to KRS3 532.110(2). For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

Cashwell v Com.,2005-CA-001200 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

William Cashwell appeals from an order of the Kenton Circuit Court of May 2, 2005, revoking his probation and ordering that he serve his prison sentence consecutively as to two concurrent sentences that had been imposed by the Campbell Circuit Court. Cashwell argues that under the terms of KRS2 533.040(3), the Kenton and Campbell sentences must be served concurrently because the revocation of his probation occurred more than ninety (90) days after the Department of Corrections became aware of the grounds for revocation. Cashwell is correct in arguing that the revocation of probation by the Kenton Circuit Court was indeed untimely for the purposes of KRS 533.040(3). However, that statute does not apply because a previous order of the Campbell Circuit Court had already directed that the sentences were to be served consecutively as mandated under KRS 533.060(3). Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Kenton Circuit Court.

Castile v Com ,2005-CA-001081 -Not Published ;Affirming -- PDF

Jeffrey Castile has appealed from the McCracken Circuit Court’s May 18, 2005, Final Judgment and order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to Third Degree Sexual Abuse. We affirm.

Chadwell v Com., 2004-CA-001673 -- Published ; Reversing -- PDF

Linda B. Chadwell appeals from a judgment entered by the Owen Circuit Court after she and numerous codefendants were found guilty of multiple drug-related offenses including, in her case, engaging in organized crime and trafficking in five or more pounds of marijuana as a principal or accomplice. We agree with her assertion that the trial court erred by failing to direct a verdict in her favor. Hence, we reverse.

Chambers v Com.,2005-CA-000815 --Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Marcus Chambers has appealed from a judgment entered by the Fayette Circuit Court on March 22, 2005, as a result of a conditional guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance in the first degree (cocaine),1 fleeing and evading the police in the second degree,2 and giving a police officer a false name.3 Having concluded that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence, we affirm.

Chambers v Com.,2006-CA-000607 -- Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Danny Chambers appeals from an order of the Lee Circuit Court denying his motion to correct, vacate or set aside judgment pursuant to CR 60.02. Chambers argues that he was denied due process and equal protection when the trial court imposed the maximum sentence even though the jury was unable to agree on the recommended sentence. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the order on appeal.

Chapa v Com., 2005-CA-001082 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Gregory Chapa appeals from an order of the Kenton Circuit Court denying his motion to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02. We affirm.

Chester v Com. , 2006-CA-000530 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

On May 27, 2005, a Christian County grand jury returned an indictment charging Leslie Chester with seconddegree robbery, kidnapping, first-degree attempted sodomy, and alcohol intoxication. The matter proceeded to a jury trial on October 31, 2005. The trial court granted Chester a directed verdict on the charges of attempted sodomy and alcohol intoxication. The jury acquitted Chester of the kidnapping charge, but found him guilty of second-degree robbery. Following the penalty phase, the jury fixed Chester’s sentence at ten years’ imprisonment, which the trial court imposed. On appeal, Chester contends that he was entitled to a directed verdict on the robbery charge, and he raises an unpreserved issue regarding the admissibility of a witness’s identification of him in a show-up procedure. Finding no error, we affirm.

Chilton v Com.,2004-CA-002276 --Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Michael Chilton was a deputy sheriff for the Daviess County Sheriff’s Department. In that capacity, he also served as a patrolman, the DARE officer, and the school resource officer at Apollo High School in Owensboro, Kentucky. Chilton was removed from the latter position after a complaint was filed against him. He was returned to patrol duty, but later was terminated from the sheriff’s office in early 2003.

Clemons v Com. 2004-CA-002351--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Derek Clemons, was charged with trafficking in a controlled substance, third degree and unrelated vehicular charges. Clemons entered an Alford plea to the charges. On appeal Clemons denies that he was trafficking in Xanax, claiming that he possessed it for personal use. He also contends that the search of his vehicle was improper. We affirm the conviction.

Clemmons Jr. V Com.,2005-CA-000548 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Charles Clemmons was convicted by a Whitley County jury of four counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree in connection with several forged payroll checks. He appeals the final judgment of the Whitley Circuit Court that sentenced him to three-years’ imprisonment on each charge -- to run concurrently. On appeal, Clemmons challenges the admissibility of testimony from the Commonwealth’s witnesses regarding the counterfeit checks and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions.

Clements v Com.,2005-CA-000556 -- Published,Vacating and Remanding -- PDF

On June 3, 1989, William Jeffery Clements and a high school friend broke into the home of one of Clements’ neighbors in Jefferson County, and stole, amongst other things, a beer mug, a radar detector, a stereo, a University of Louisville parking permit and a bottle of Jim Beam bourbon. The young men’s ill-gotten goods were valued at approximately $755.00. Clements and his friend were quickly arrested and charged with burglary in the second degree and theft by unlawful taking over $100.00, both Class D felonies. At the time, Clements was eighteen years old.

Clements v Com, 2005-CA-000556 -- Published ; Affirming -- PDF

On June 3, 1989, William Jeffery Clements and a high school friend broke into the home of one of Clements’ neighbors in Jefferson County, and stole, amongst other things, a beer mug, a radar detector, a stereo, a University of Louisville parking permit and a bottle of Jim Beam bourbon. The young men’s ill-gotten goods were valued at approximately $755.00. Clements and his friend were quickly arrested and charged with burglary in the second degree, a Class C felony, and theft by unlawful taking over $100.00, a Class D felony. At the time, Clements was eighteen years old.

Cloud v Com.,2005-CA-001070 -- Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

On March 5, 2003, the Bell County grand jury indicted James E. Cloud on one count each of robbery in the first degree,2 and being a persistent felony offender in the second degree.3 On January 27, 2004, Cloud accepted the Commonwealth’s offer to plead guilty to the robbery charge in exchange for a dismissal of the persistent felony offender charge. On March 1, 2004, the trial court sentenced Cloud to twenty years’ imprisonment in accord with the Commonwealth’s recommendation. Thereafter, Cloud filed pro se motions to set aside his sentence pursuant to RCr 11.42 and to appoint counsel. The trial court denied the motions without conducting an evidentiary hearing or appointing counsel. This appeal followed.

Coleman v Com, 2004-CA-001134--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Lester Knox Coleman,1 pro se, has appealed2 from the May 28, 2004, order of the Fayette Circuit Court which denied his motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to RCr3 11.42.4 Having concluded that the trial court did not err in setting the terms of Coleman’s sentence and in finding that he received the effective assistance of counsel, we affirm.

Coleman v Com, 2005-CA-000557--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Lester Knox Coleman,1 pro se, has appealed2 from the May 28, 2004, order of the Fayette Circuit Court which denied his motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to CR3 60.02(f).4 Having concluded that the trial court did not err in finding Coleman competent to stand trial and in finding he received effective assistance of counsel, we affirm.

Collins v Com,2004-CA-001791 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Eugene Collins appeals from a judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court convicting him of the crimes of thirddegree burglary and possession of burglar’s tools and sentencing him to three years in prison. We affirm.

Com V Baldwin,2004-CA-002528 -- Published ; Reversing and Remanding -- PDF

The Commonwealth appeals from an order entered by the Boone Circuit Court granting the motion of appellee Jason Thomas Baldwin to suppress all evidence obtained from a search which was conducted pursuant to a search warrant. For the reasons stated hereafter, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Com. v Bunch,2005-CA-001330 --Not Published, Reversing and Remanding -- PDF

The Commonwealth of Kentucky appeals from an order of the Marshall Circuit Court granting the motion of Ricky Bunch to suppress evidence obtained during a search of Bunch’s residence. The circuit court found that the search warrant was improperly issued because it was based on the statement of a confidential informant whose reliability was unproven. The court also found that no independent investigation of the informant’s claims was undertaken. For the reasons stated below, we reverse the order of the Marshall Circuit Court and remand the matter for further proceedings.

Com. v Disponett, 2005-CA-002575 -- Not Published ; Vacating and Remanding -- PDF

This case arises from the Franklin Circuit Court’s sua sponte dismissal of a three-count misdemeanor indictment against Dave Disponett on the basis of the pardon issued by Governor Fletcher in Executive Order 2005-924. The Franklin County Special Grand Jury, summoned by the Attorney General to investigate criminal violations of Kentucky’s merit system hiring scheme, returned the indictment against Disponett.The Commonwealth raises three issues in its appeal, contesting the validity of Governor Fletcher’s pardon, asserting that Disponett did not accept the pardon and accordingly could not benefit from it, and arguing that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over the misdemeanor indictment. While we disagree with two of the Commonwealth’s arguments in light of the Supreme Court of Kentucky’s recent decision of Fletcher v. Graham,2 we agree that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to dismiss the indictment. Accordingly, we vacate the circuit court’s order and remand.

Com. v Fields,2005-CA-002574 -- Not Published ; Vacating and Remanding -- PDF

This case arises from the Franklin Circuit Court’s sua sponte dismissal of a three-count misdemeanor indictment against Vincent Fields on the basis of the pardon issued by Governor Fletcher in Executive Order 2005-924. The Franklin County Special Grand Jury, summoned by the Attorney General to investigate criminal violations of Kentucky’s merit system hiring scheme, returned the indictment against Fields.The Commonwealth raises three issues in its appeal, contesting the validity of Governor Fletcher’s pardon, asserting that Vincent did not accept the pardon and accordingly could not benefit from it, and arguing that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over the misdemeanor indictment. While we disagree with two of the Commonwealth’s arguments in light of the Supreme Court of Kentucky’s recent decision of Fletcher v. Graham,2 we agree that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to dismiss the indictment. Accordingly, we vacate the circuit court’s order and remand.

Com. V Filben, 2004-CA-002207 -- Published ; OPINION Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part, and Remanding -- PDF

This matter is before us upon an Order of this court dated July 28, 2005, granting discretionary review.2 We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

Com. v Groves and Groves V Com.,2005-CA-002573 -- Published ; Vacating and Remanding -- PDF

These cases arise from the Franklin Circuit Court’s sua sponte dismissal of a two-count misdemeanor indictment against Daniel Groves on the basis of the pardon issued by Governor Fletcher in Executive Order 2005-924, as well as the circuit court’s denial of Groves’ motion to quash the indictment. The Franklin County Special Grand Jury, summoned by the Attorney General to investigate criminal violations of Kentucky’s merit system hiring scheme, returned the indictment against Groves. The Commonwealth raises three issues in its appeal, contesting the validity of Governor Fletcher’s pardon, asserting that Groves did not accept the pardon and accordingly could not benefit from it, and arguing that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over the misdemeanor indictment. In his separate appeal, Groves asserts that the circuit court should have quashed the indictment. While we disagree with two of the Commonwealth’s arguments in light of the Supreme Court of Kentucky’s recent decision of Fletcher v. Graham,2 we agree that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to dismiss the indictment. Accordingly, we vacate the circuit court’s order and remand.

Com. v Hakim,2005-CA-001064 -- Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, appeals the Bath Circuit Court’s grant of shock probation to the Appellee, Abdal-Azeez Jalal Hakim. We affirm.

Com.V Hughes, 2005-CA-002576 -- Not Published ; Vacating and Remanding -- PDF

This case arises from the Franklin Circuit Court’s sua sponte dismissal of a two-count misdemeanor indictment against J. Marshall Hughes on the basis of the pardon issued by Governor Fletcher in Executive Order 2005-924. The Franklin County Special Grand Jury, summoned by the Attorney General to investigate criminal violations of Kentucky’s merit system hiring scheme, returned the indictment against Hughes. The Commonwealth raises three issues in its appeal, contesting the validity of Governor Fletcher’s pardon, asserting that Hughes did not accept the pardon and accordingly could not benefit from it, and arguing that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over the misdemeanor indictment. While we disagree with two of the Commonwealth’s arguments in light of the Supreme Court of Kentucky’s recent decision of Fletcher v. Graham,2 we agree that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to dismiss the indictment. Accordingly, we vacate the circuit court’s order and remand.

Com. v Ingram,2005-CA-000062 --To Be Published ;Affirming -- PDF

This case is again before the court on the Commonwealth’s appeal of an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court granting Dwight Ingram’s motion to suppress evidence. A panel of this court had remanded the case for reconsideration after the circuit court had initially granted the motion. We affirm the court’s order again granting Ingram’s motion.

Com.v Ingram,2005-CA-000062 --Not Published,Reversing -- PDF

This case is again before the court on the Commonwealth’s appeal of an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court granting Dwight Ingram’s motion to suppress evidence. A panel of this court had remanded the case for reconsideration after the circuit court had initially granted the motion. We reverse the circuit court’s order that again granted Ingram’s motion.

Com. V Redd, 2005-CA-000068 --Not Published ; Opinion Reversing and Remanding As To 2005-CA-000068-MR and Affirming As To 2005-CA-000301-MR -- PDF

Below Jaques Redd (Redd) was charged with two drug charges and being a second-degree persistent felony offender3 (PFO II). He brings appeal 2005-CA-000301-MR from a judgment of the Christian Circuit Court upon a jury trial adjudging him guilty on two counts of first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance (cocaine)4 and sentencing him to two respective ten-year concurrent terms of imprisonment. The Commonwealth of Kentucky (Commonwealth) brings appeal 2005-CA- 000068-MR from an order of the Christian Circuit Court dismissing the PFO II charge against Redd after the same jury was unable to reach a verdict on the PFO II charge.

Com. v Spalding,2005-CA-001315 -- Published, Reversing -- PDF

Gabriel Spalding entered a conditional guilty plea in district court, and he was convicted of second-offense driving under the influence (DUI).1 The circuit court reversed this conviction on appeal, holding that the district court erred by denying Spalding’s motion to suppress evidence against him obtained during a traffic stop. On discretionary review, we reverse the circuit court because we believe that the circuit court erred by substituting its judgment as to the credibility of witnesses and by misapplying the law.

Com v Shouse 2005-CA-000071-- To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

The issue presented in this appeal is whether a defendant who has successfully completed a felony diversion program may have the records of his case expunged under KRS 431.076. We hold that under the facts of this case he can. 1 Senior Judge John Woods Potter sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the Chief Justice pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and KRS 21.580.

Com. v Wooten 2004-CA-002334--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

The Commonwealth of Kentucky appeals from orders of the Bracken Circuit Court that ultimately led to the court determining Deanna Gayle Wooten to be incompetent to stand trial on two counts of first-degree criminal abuse. We affirm.

Com. v Strohofer , 2005-CA-001892 -- Published ; Affirming -- PDF

The Commonwealth brings this appeal from an order of the Mason Circuit Court entered August 15, 2005 dismissing the charges against Lisa Janelle Strohofer. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

Combs v Com., 2005-CA-001781 --Not Published, Vacating and Remanding -- PDF

Joshua Combs challenges on appeal the revocation of his probation. Because the trial court’s revocation order failed to make the requisite written factual findings concerning the conditions of release that Combs violated, we must vacate and remand.

Conley v Com.,2005-CA-001897 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Thomas Conley has appealed his June 16, 2005, conviction following a jury trial in Pendleton Circuit Court for Possession of a Firearm (Handgun) by a Convicted Felon (KRS 527.040) and for Resisting Arrest (KRS 520.090). He argues that the circuit court should have directed a verdict in his favor on both charges because the Commonwealth failed to establish sufficient proof to support a conviction on either charge. We disagree. Therefore, we affirm.

Cook v Com.,2004-CA-002044 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Mary Cook has appealed from an order entered by the Hardin Circuit Court on September 20, 2004, which denied her pro se motion to vacate or set aside her sentence pursuant to RCr2 11.42, without holding an evidentiary hearing. Having concluded that the circuit court did not err in rejecting Cook’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on the basis of the court record without holding an evidentiary hearing, we affirm.

Cook v Com.,2005-CA-001174 -- Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

This is an appeal from a judgment pursuant to a jury verdict convicting appellant of theft by unlawful taking over $300 for taking 100 wheels from a home scrap yard. Appellant’s sole argument is that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. Upon review of all the evidence presented at trial, we believe the trial court properly refused to enter a directed verdict for appellant. Hence, we affirm.

Coomer v Com, 2004-CA-002451 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Monte Laron Coomer appeals his conviction following a jury trial in the Fayette Circuit Court for trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree, possession of marijuana, and giving a peace officer a false name. In this appeal, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the charges of trafficking in a controlled substance and possession of marijuana. Coomer concedes that he did not preserve this claim of error for appellate review since he failed to move for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence after the Commonwealth introduced rebuttal evidence.

Cowhead v Com.,2005-CA-001708 --Not Published, Vacating and Remanding -- PDF

Carl Cowherd pled guilty to trafficking in marijuana over five pounds, first degree Persistent Felony Offender (PFO), trafficking in marijuana less than eight ounces with a firearm, illegal possession of drug paraphernalia with a firearm, and tampering with physical evidence. The Jefferson Circuit Court accepted Cowherd’s plea and imposed the recommended sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment.

Crabtree v Com, 2003-CA-000797 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Roger G. Crabtree appeals from the judgment of the Clinton Circuit Court sentencing him to serve five years in prison after a jury convicted him of unlawful possession of a methamphetamine precursor, pseudoephedrine. Crabtree alleges four errors that he has failed to preserve for our review: that the verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence; that the Commonwealth failed to present competent evidence that the substance he possessed was actually pseudoephedrine; that his rights under the Fifth Amendment were violated by mention of the fact that he had invoked his right to remain silent; and that -2- the Commonwealth improperly introduced evidence of a plea of guilty by William Abbott, his co-indictee. Finding no error, we affirm.

Cresie V Com.,2005-CA-000649 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Tonya Cresie appeals from the judgment of the Christian Circuit Court entered on a guilty plea to charges of custodial interference. Cresie had picked up one of her daughters from school in Evansville, Indiana and drove the child back to Hopkinsville without the father’s consent or knowledge. Counsel for Cresie has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 118 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) stating that there appeared to be no meritorious basis for the -2- appeal, requesting permission to withdraw and for the appellant to be granted additional time in which to file a brief pro se if she chose to do so, and to grant any relief to which this Court may determine she is entitled. She appears not to have chosen to file a brief with this court. We perceive no basis for relief and affirm the judgment.

Crick v Com.,2005-CA-002270 -- Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Jeffery L. Crick appeals from an order of the Christian Circuit Court that denied his petition filed pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.03 for writ venire facias de novo and his subsequent motions for judgment by default. We affirm.

Crumes v Com, 2005-CA-001004 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Deon Crumes appeals from a judgment entered by the Jefferson Circuit Court after a jury found him guilty of first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance. For the reasons stated hereafter, we affirm.
Return to the Main Table of Cases