2006 Unpublished Court of Appeals Opinions Index

Table of Cases
G

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.

Gaines V Com.,2004-CA-002349 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

While McClellan Gaines was incarcerated on felony charges he learned that a Jessamine County warrant had been issued for him as a result of a criminal complaint charging him with five counts of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument Second Degree. It is not possible to determine from the record exactly how or when Gaines learned about the Jessamine County charges. The arrest warrant was issued for him on July 15, 2003. The record does not contain a copy of the District Court warrant returned and marked as “served” upon Gaines.

Gambrel v Com, 2004-CA-002259 --Not Published ; Vacating and Remanding -- PDF

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s RCr 11.42 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to present any mitigating evidence in the sentencing phase of her trial in which she was convicted of second-degree manslaughter and first-degree arson. Upon review of the trial, we agree that appellant’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence that the victim had committed acts of domestic violence against appellant during -2- their marriage. Accordingly, we vacate the sentences and remand for re-sentencing.

Garber v Com.,2005-CA-000119 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Jason Garber appeals from the Graves Circuit Court’s judgment sentencing him to ten years imprisonment following entry of a conditional guilty plea. Garber contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to suppress evidence found at his residence. Upon review, we affirm.

Gardner v Com.,2005-CA-000585 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Harold W. Gardner (Gardner) appeals his convictions in Muhlenburg Circuit Court on charges of Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon, Possession of a Controlled Substance with firearm enhancement and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. For the reasons stated, we affirm.

Gibbins v Com, 2005-CA-001793 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

This appeal from the denial of appellant’s CR 60.02 motion for relief from a 1994 judgment sentencing him to a total of fifty years’ imprisonment upon his conviction for murder and first degree robbery represents but the latest in a series of unsuccessful collateral attacks upon that judgment. Finding no error in the trial judge’s assessment that the relief appellant sought by way of the current motion has been repeatedly denied by final rulings of this Court and the Supreme Court of Kentucky, we affirm the denial of appellant’s current motion.

Gibson V Com.,2005-CA-001607 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Jamie F. Gibson, pro se, appeals from an order of the Pulaski Circuit Court that denied his motion made pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42. Appellant claims ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Appellant claims that in light of Kotila v. Commonwealth, 114 S.W.3d 226 (Ky. 2003), Appellant would have not have pled guilty under KRS 218A.1432(1)(b) for the manufacture of methamphetamine. For the reasons stated below, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Gillespie v Com.,2004-CA-002343 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

On October 13, 2003, a Fayette County grand jury returned Indictment No. 03-CR-1226, charging Thomas Gillespie with trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree1 and being a first-degree persistent felony offender.2 The charges arose out of an arrest which occurred on August 2, 2003. On October 14, 2003, the grand jury returned Indictment No. 03- CR-01241, charging Gillespie with the same offenses but arising out of another arrest on July 31, 2003.

Goldey v Com.,2004-CA-002325 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Timothy Goldey (Goldey), appeals the Montgomery Circuit Court judgment against him. We affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

Goldsmith v Com.,2005-CA-001540 --Not Published,Affirming -- PDF

Jason Goldsmith appeals from an order of the Bullitt Circuit Court that denied his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to first-degree wanton endangerment and misdemeanor trafficking involved in marijuana charges. He argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion. As we disagree, we affirm the trial court..

Gordon v Com ,2005-CA-000746 -Not Published ;Affirming -- PDF

William R. Gordon appeals his conviction in the McCracken Circuit Court for the offense of flagrant nonsupport. Gordon was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment, probated for five years or until restitution was paid in full. He challenges his conviction on appeal on the ground that the Commonwealth failed to prove that he could reasonably pay the child support ordered. We affirm.

Gordon v Com,2004-CA-001453 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Jeff Lynn Gordon appeals from the Edmonson Circuit Court’s judgment sentencing him to ten years’ imprisonment after a jury found him guilty of first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse. Gordon argues that the trial court erred by failing to direct a verdict in his favor on the sodomy count and, alternatively, by failing to instruct the jury as to second-degree sodomy. He also argues that the Commonwealth’s Attorney committed palpable error2 by attempting to define “reasonable doubt” during voir dire and by commenting on Gordon’s prearrest right to silence. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Gragston v Com ,2005-CA-002137 - Not Published ;Affirming -- PDF

After having entered a conditional plea of guilty, Anthony Dewayne Gragston brings this appeal from a Final Judgment and Sentence of the Fayette Circuit Court, which convicted him of possession of marijuana2 and evading or fleeing police.3 The issue on appeal is whether the trial court correctly overruled the motion to suppress evidence seized by the police at the time of the arrest. After our review of the record and pertinent law, we affirm.

Gray v Com.,2005-CA-001337 -- Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Ronnie Gray appeals from an order of the Knox Circuit Court overruling his pro se motion for CR 60.02 postconviction relief. Upon review, we affirm.

Green v Com., 2006-CA-000100 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Bobby Green, appeals pro se from the denial of his motion for RCr 11.42 post-conviction relief in the Laurel Circuit Court.

Griffith v Com.,2005-CA-002601 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

On October 12, 1999, appellant, Randall Lamont Griffith, was convicted of first degree trafficking in a controlled substance (cocaine) and tampering with physical evidence following a jury trial in Jefferson Circuit Court. He thereafter pled guilty to being a persistent felony offender (PFO) in the first degree and was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. This Court affirmed his conviction in its entirety on November 5, 2001. 2000-CA-001607-MR.

Grimes V Com.,2005-CA-000198 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Rodney Grimes appeals from the order of the Jefferson Circuit Court denying his post-conviction motion for relief from a judgment under Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02. The circuit court denied the motion as untimely. Grimes argues that the court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing. We disagree, and affirm.

Grimes v Com.,2005-CA-001185 -- Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

On January 31, 2000, Michael Dewayne Grimes pleaded guilty to first-degree rape and the amended charge of second-degree sexual abuse. On March 2, 2000, the circuit court entered the final judgment and sentence. In accordance with the plea agreement, Grimes was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment on the rape charge and twelve months’ imprisonment on the sexual abuse charge. He filed a motion to set aside or vacate the judgment and sentence pursuant to RCr 11.42 and CR 60.02 on August 24, 2004, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his conviction was a “miscarriage of justice.”

Gross v Com.,2005-CA-000988 --Not Published,Affirming -- PDF

Jamie Lee Gross appeals, pro se, from the McLean Circuit Court’s denial of his RCr 11.42 motion. We affirm.
Return to the Main Table of Cases