2006 Unpublished Court of Appeals Opinions Index

Table of Cases
M

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.

M.A.S v Com.,2005-CA-000567 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Appellant M.A.S. appeals a requirement in his judgment of conviction requiring him to register as a sex offender, pursuant to KRS 17.510. We affirm the ruling of the Kenton Circuit Court.

Mallory v Com, 2004-CA-002169 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

James Mallory appeals from the denial of his motion filed pursuant to CR1 60.02 seeking relief from his conviction of sodomy in the first degree. A juvenile at the time of the offense, Mallory argues that his attorneys at both the juvenile court level and at the circuit court level were ineffective in their representation. The Jefferson Circuit Court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing. After our review of the record, we affirm.

Malloy v Com.,2005-CA-001054 -- Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Robert Charles Molloy, Jr., pro se, has appealed from the April 21, 2005, order of the Jefferson Circuit Court which denied his pro se motion to vacate or to correct the trial court’s final judgment and sentence of imprisonment pursuant to RCr1 11.42, without holding an evidentiary hearing. Having concluded that the trial court did not err in denying Molloy’s claims without holding an evidentiary hearing, we affirm.

Manley III v Com., 2004-CA-002454 -- Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

In May 2004, a Franklin County jury convicted Robert Manley, III, of first-degree rape.1 Manley was accused of forcing intercourse upon a woman with whom he had been flirting and kissing after she had indicated that she wished the contact to go no further. Following the guilt-phase verdict, Manley waived his right to appeal and to a penalty phase trial and pled guilty to charges that he was a second-degree persistent felon.2 In exchange for Manley’s concessions, the Commonwealth recommended that he be sentenced to thirty years in prison.

Mardis v Com., 2004-CA-000632 -- To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Ronnie Mardis appeals from an order of the Marshall Circuit Court denying his motion to vacate judgment pursuant to CR1 60.02. The issue is whether Mardis should be granted relief from his conviction and 12-year sentence for manufacturing methamphetamine in light of the Kentucky Supreme Court’s later decision in Kotila v. Commonwealth, 114 S.W.3d 226 (Ky. 2003). We conclude that the trial court properly denied Mardis’s motion, and we thus affirm.

Marsh v Com.,2005-CA-001364 -- Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Leonard Marsh appeals the denial of a CR 60.02 motion. We affirm.

Martin V Com.,2005-CA-001169 -- Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Louis Lamont Martin appeals pro se from the Fayette Circuit Court’s order overruling his petition for a writ venire facias de novo. For the following reasons, we affirm. In a previous opinion,2 the Kentucky Supreme Court set forth the facts in the matter now before us as follows:

Mason v Com.,2004-CA-002641 --Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Donathan Mason has appealed from a judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court entered on December 9, 2004, following a conditional plea of guilty to possession of a controlled substance in the first degree,1 fleeing and evading police in the second degree,2 possession of a firearm by a convicted felon,3 resisting arrest,4 and being a persistent felony offender in the second degree.5 Having concluded that the trial court properly denied Mason’s motion to suppress evidence, we affirm.

Mason v Com.,2005-CA-000975 -- Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Jimmy Mason has appealed from the judgment and sentence of the Casey Circuit Court entered on May 12, 2005, following a jury trial wherein he was found guilty of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon.1 Having concluded that the prosecutor’s closing argument during the guilt phase of the trial was not improper, we affirm.

Massey v Com.,2005-CA-000407 --Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Terry G. Massey, pro se, appeals from an order of the Warren Circuit Court that denied his motion made pursuant to CR1 60.02(e) and (f). Massey sought to vacate or set aside an earlier order that had denied a previous motion filed pursuant to RCr2 11.42. Both motions were based on the identical claim that Massey had entered an involuntary guilty plea due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Massey contended that his counsel had misinformed him regarding his parole eligibility, assuring him that he would be paroled in two-years’ time. However, the violent offenders’ statute, KRS3 439.3401, requires that he serve eighty-five percent of his ten-year sentence -- or eight and one-half years -- prior to becoming eligible for parole.

Mateycak v Com.,2004-CA-001941 --Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Kurtis Mateycak appeals from an order of the McCracken Circuit Court denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02. Mateycak alleges that his guilty plea to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine is void under Kotila v. Commonwealth2 because he did not possess all of the precursors necessary to manufacture methamphetamine at the time of his arrest. As the trial court properly denied Mateycak’s motion, we affirm.

Mattie v Com.,2005-CA-001867 --Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

During the latter part of 1999, a Pulaski County grand jury returned two indictments charging Robert D. Mattie for the offense of theft by unlawful taking over $300.00,3 first-degree wanton endangerment,4 and with being a persistent felony offender in the second decree.5 Because the charges arose out of the same incident, the court ordered the indictments consolidated for trial. Following the trial, the jury convicted Mattie of the theft and PFO charge and of second-degree wanton endangerment. The jury fixed his sentence at twelve months for wanton endangerment, and five years for the theft, enhanced to ten years by virtue of his status as a PFO II. This Court affirmed on direct appeal.6 Thereafter, Mattie filed a pro se motion to alter, amend or vacate his conviction pursuant to RCr 11.42. The trial court denied his motion on August 12, 2005, without appointing counsel or conducting a hearing. This appeal followed. Finding no error, we affirm.

Maxie v Com., 2005-CA-001822 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

James Maxie brings this pro se appeal from a June 17, 2005, order of the McCracken Circuit Court summarily denying his Ky. R. Crim. P. (RCr) 11.42 motion to vacate sentence. We affirm.

Mayfield V Com.,2004-CA-001907 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Steven Mayfield appeals an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court revoking his probation. He alleges that his rights to procedural due process were infringed at the revocation hearing. Because a review of the record discloses no reversible error, we affirm the decision of the circuit court.

Maxie v Com, 2004-CA-001643--Not To Be Published; Affirming in Part, Vacating in Part and Remanding -- PDF

James C. Maxie appeals, pro se, from orders of the McCracken Circuit Court denying his motion for RCr2 11.42 relief and denying his motion for the return of $348.00 taken from his person in concurrence with his arrest. On review, we affirm in part and vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Mcatee v Com., 2005-CA-000814 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Marvin McAtee appeals from a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court wherein he was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years in prison for the crime of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon and for being a persistent felony offender in the first degree. He argues that the handgun charge should be reversed on constitutional grounds, that the stop and search was not justified by the circumstances, and that reversible error occurred in the admission of certain testimony. We disagree and thus affirm.

McCombs V Com.,2005-CA-000252 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Vernon McCombs brings this appeal from a January 24, 2005, judgment of the Hardin Circuit Court imposing a ten year sentence upon a guilty plea to criminal attempt to commit first-degree rape, incest, and distribution of obscene matter to a minor. We affirm.

McCombs v Com, 2004-CA-001850 --Published ; Affirming In Part, Reversing In Part and Remanding -- PDF

Kevin Todd McCombs appeals from an August 12, 2004, judgment of the Bullitt Circuit Court upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of first-degree burglary, fourth-degree assault, and violation of a protective order. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

McDaniel v Com, 2003-CA-002741 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

William McDaniel appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. For the reasons stated below, we affirm his conviction.

McDaniel Jr. v Com and Andrea Sharee Stokes ,2005-CA-001394 --Not Published ;Vacating and Remanding -- PDF

That the police lacked time to get a warrant without thwarting the arrest or making it more dangerous is the -2- essence of the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. In this appeal, Rodney McDaniel Jr. and Andrea Stokes argue that exigent circumstances did not justify the warrantless entry into their apartment because the police had adequate time to get a warrant. Because the trial court failed to make specific findings on the crucial time-lapse issue, we must vacate and remand.

McDonald v Com., 2004-CA-002168 -- Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Charles Samuel McDonald, pro se, appeals from those portions of an Opinion and Order of the Jefferson Circuit Court entered on September 1, 2004, which denied his motion to vacate or set aside judgment pursuant to the provisions of CR1 60.02(e) and (f) -- as well as for his motion for appointment of counsel. We affirm.

McElroy (now Goodlett) v Com., 2005-CA-002547 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Kristin McElroy3 appeals from an order of the Boyle Circuit Court revoking her May 11, 2000, pretrial diversion agreement with the Commonwealth. Finding no error, we affirm.

McFarland v Com.,2005-CA-002177 -- Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Christopher McFarland appeals from an order of the Warren Circuit Court denying his motion for RCr 11.42 relief. McFarland argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant an evidentiary hearing on the motion. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the order on appeal.

McGinnis Jr V Com.,2005-CA-000102 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

In this pro se appeal under CR 60.02, George McGinnis, Jr. (George) raises a number of challenges to his 1987 convictions for first-degree rape (two counts), first-degree sodomy (two counts) and kidnapping for which he received a 70 year sentence. The trial court denied his motion in the underlying proceedings, precipitating this appeal. His challenges are that: (1) in conducting the trial within two and a half months of his criminal acts, the trial court may have inadvertently rendered his counsel ineffective; and (2) the -2- trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to shift the burden of proof to the defense. He further claims that these errors occurred before and during his trial, but he has just now detected them and could not have raised them in his earlier post-conviction challenges. Finally, George argues that he was entitled to the appointment of counsel and a hearing on his CR 60.02 motion. Because we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying George’s CR 60.02 motion, we affirm.

McGinnis III v Com. 2005-CA-000256--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Will T. McGinnis III, appeals, pro se, the Fayette Circuit Court dismissal of his action against the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Judge Kevin Horne and Robert Stokes, the prosecutor handling a prior criminal action against McGinnis. We affirm the dismissal.

McGregor v Com., 2005-CA-001444 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Kevin McGregor appeals from an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court denying his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to CR2 60.02. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

McGuire Jr V Com.,2005-CA-000481 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Chris D. McGuire appeals from the judgment of the Henderson Circuit Court finding him guilty of possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. McGuire argues on appeal that the court should have granted a directed verdict because there was insufficient evidence of possession of drugs found in the passenger compartment of a car McGuire was driving. We disagree and affirm.

McKee v Com.,2005-CA-001512 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

This is an appeal from a judgment pursuant to a conditional guilty plea convicting appellant of possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. Appellant argues that the evidence of the controlled substances found in the car and on his person should have been suppressed because they were obtained as a result of an unlawful interrogation and strip search. We adjudge that appellant’s argument that he was unlawfully interrogated before being read his Miranda rights was not preserved for appellate review and did not constitute palpable error. As to the strip search of appellant, we believe the strip search was proper in this case because appellant had been charged with a drug offense, he indicated that he had more drugs on his person, and he was about to be introduced into the jail population. Hence, we affirm.

McKenzie v Com, 2004-CA-002243 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Jay McKenzie (McKenzie) appeals from a judgment of the Johnson Circuit Court convicting him of second-degree manslaughter and being a persistent felony offender in the second degree and sentencing him to eighteen years’ imprisonment. McKenzie was charged as a result of a fatal car accident after he was found to be impaired from consumption of a combination of prescription medications. On appeal, he argues that his lack of knowledge of the effects of combining these medications negated the wanton state necessary to convict him. Further, he raises issues concerning the admissibility of evidence regarding the results of blood and urine tests, the jury instruction on voluntary intoxication by prescription medication, and the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the PFO charge which was obtained by a subsequent indictment two years after the original charges were brought. We have examined all of the issues presented and conclude that no reversible error occurred. Thus, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

McNabb v Com., 2005-CA-001016 -- Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Wade McNabb was employed as a youth minister at the Clarksburg Christian Church in Lewis County, Kentucky, from late 2002 to early 2003. In this capacity, McNabb became acquainted with the family of M. G. and her two sons, A. D., and D.H., who was fourteen years of age at that time. McNabb had almost daily contact with D.H. in connection with either church or home schooling activities including time spent at McNabb’s residence alone and overnight.

Meade v Com.,2006-CA-000020 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Benjamin S. Meade, pro se, appeals from an order of the Bell Circuit Court that denied his motion to modify his sentence made pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02. Specifically, Appellant contends that the trial court improperly directed a subsequent sentence to run consecutively, rather than concurrently, with a previously probated sentence.

Meadows III v Com.,2004-CA-002571 --Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Robert Meadows appeals the denial of his RCr 11.42 motion to vacate his convictions for assault in the first degree and criminal abuse in the first degree. The trial court denied his motion to vacate after concluding that there was not a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different if Meadows’ trial counsel had called a medical expert at trial. We affirm.

Meece V Com.,2005-CA-001441 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

William Meece appeals from an order of the Fayette Circuit Court denying his motion for CR 60.02 relief. Meece argued that the Commonwealth improperly withheld and destroyed certain evidence prior to trial, resulting in the denial of his due process rights. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the order on appeal.

Merrick v Com, 2002-CA-002034 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Marlin Merrick appeals the final judgment and sentence entered by the Pulaski Circuit Court on September 9, 2002. The judgment, entered following a jury trial, adjudged him guilty of criminal attempt to commit manslaughter, first degree (two counts), burglary first degree, and assault fourth degree and imposed a ten-year sentence. We affirm.

Merriman V Com.,2005-CA-000123 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

James Oscar Merriman, who at the age of 16 committed a crime qualifying him as a youthful offender, appeals from a January 12, 2005 final judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court denying his motion for probation, pursuant to KRS 439.3401, and re-sentencing him as an adult. Upon review, we affirm.

Metcalf v Com., 2005-CA-000014 -- Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

David Metcalf appeals from a judgment convicting him of one count of first-degree assault and one count of criminal trespass. He alleges that he was denied his sixth amendment right of confrontation; that his request for an instruction on second-degree assault and his motion for a mistrial were improperly denied; and that the trial judge’s hostility to his counsel denied him a fair trial. Finding no reversible error in any of the cited allegations of error, we affirm the judgment of the Whitley Circuit Court.

Miles III v Com.,2005-CA-000316 -- Not Published, Affirming in Part, Vacating in Part and Remanding -- PDF

George Lee Miles, III has appealed from the order of the Fayette Circuit Court entered on February 3, 2005, which, without holding an evidentiary hearing, denied his pro se motion pursuant to RCr2 11.42, to vacate, set aside, or correct the trial court’s final judgment and sentence of imprisonment. Having concluded that Miles was not entitled to a jury instruction on extreme emotional disturbance and that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to call an expert witness in the field of ballistics, we affirm on those issues. Having further concluded that Miles may have been entitled to a jury instruction on imperfect self-protection and that trial counsel may have been ineffective for failing to present compelling mitigating evidence during the penalty phase of trial, we vacate and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

Miller V Com.,2004-CA-001985 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Davorrah Miller appeals from the judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court, entered on a conditional guilty plea to assault in the second degree, driving under the influence with aggravator assault in the fourth degree, tampering with physical evidence, two counts of wanton endangerment in the first degree, criminal mischief in the first degree, possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. Miller was sentenced to a total of fifteen years’ imprisonment for the above offenses. Miller asserts that it was error for the court not to allow her to present the defense of mental illness negating the element of intent. We disagree, and affirm.

Miller v Com.,2005-CA-001056 -- Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Marcus Miller was convicted of possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and persistent felony offender in the second degree. On appeal he makes three allegations of error by the trial court: that it refused to direct a verdict on the possession charge; that the Commonwealth failed to prove all the elements of persistent felony offender; and, error in the jury instructions. We find no error in the trial proceedings and affirm.

Milliner v Com.,2005-CA-002288 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Craig Brent Milliner appeals, pro se, from an order entered by the Grayson Circuit Court denying his motion seeking RCr 11.42 relief based on allegations that he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm.

Mills v Com.,2005-CA-000882 --Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Terry D. Mills appeals from an order of the McCracken Circuit Court denying his CR2 60.02 motion to vacate the court’s judgment convicting him of criminal offenses and enhancing his sentence pursuant to the persistent felony offender (PFO) statute. This was Mills’s second CR 60.02 motion. We affirm.

Monhollen V Com.,2005-CA-000433 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Following a two-day jury trial in February 1999, a Whitley County jury found Preston Monhollen guilty of the November 1996 murder of his mentally retarded uncle, Elmer Lynn Croley. By judgment entered March 18, 1999, the Whitley Circuit Court sentenced Monhollen to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. Our Supreme Court affirmed Monhollen’s conviction in an - 2 - unpublished opinion rendered February 21, 2002.2 In about February 2003, Monhollen moved the circuit court for relief from his judgment pursuant to RCr 11.42. By order entered February 5, 2005, the Whitley Circuit Court denied Monhollen’s motion. It is from that denial that Monhollen has appealed. He maintains that his 1999 trial was rendered unfair by counsel’s failure to present additional defense witnesses. Because we are convinced that the additional evidence is not reasonably likely to have affected the outcome of Monhollen’s trial, we affirm.

Monin v Com.,2005-CA-000011 -- Published, Reversing -- PDF

Following a jury trial in the Marion District Court, Chris Monin was convicted of driving under the influence and of failing to wear a seatbelt. On appeal to the Marion Circuit Court, Monin contended that he had been arrested at an illegally established and improperly maintained vehicle checkpoint. The circuit court disagreed and affirmed his conviction. We granted discretionary review and, after careful review of the case, we reverse his conviction.

Moore-Baker v Com., 2005-CA-000610 -- Not Published ;Affirming -- PDF

Toderick L. Moore-Baker brings this pro se appeal from a February 7, 2005, order of the Jefferson Circuit Court denying his Ky. R. Civ. P. (CR) 60.02 motion. We affirm. In June 1993, appellant entered a guilty plea to three counts of murder, one count of kidnapping, one count of criminal facilitation to commit robbery in the first degree, and one count of receiving stolen property over $100.00.1 He was sentenced to life in prison without parole for twenty-five years. Thereafter, appellant filed a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to Ky. R. Crim. P. (RCr) 11.42 and CR 60.02. By order entered June 17, 1997, the circuit court denied appellant’s motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s denial in Appeal No. 1997-CA-001691-MR. In February 2005, appellant filed another CR 60.02 motion. That motion was denied by the circuit court on February 7, 2005, thus precipitating this appeal.

Moorman v Com.,2004-CA-001993 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s RCr 11.42 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel on his guilty pleas. Appellant maintains that his counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him that his sentence could only be enhanced under KRS 218A or KRS 532.080 but not under both statutes, and when he failed to have the PFO I amended to PFO II. Appellant also argues that the Department of Corrections violated his due process rights when it ran his present sentences consecutive with a prior sentence. Appellant’s first ineffective assistance of counsel argument is without merit and his second is unpreserved. Appellant’s argument challenging the actions of the Department of Corrections is not properly before us in an RCr 11.42 motion. Accordingly, we affirm.

Morgan v Com.,2004-CA-002462 --Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

William L. Morgan was convicted of first-degree rape in Butler Circuit Court and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. On appeal Morgan contends that the circuit court committed four errors that warrant reversal of his conviction. Additionally, Morgan alleges juror misconduct constituting reversible error. First, Morgan charges improper and prejudicial testimony relating to alleged “prior bad acts” was admitted.

Morris (now Bennett) v Com.,2005-CA-000387 --Not Published,Affirming -- PDF

Joanie Mae Morris (now Bennett) appeals from a jury verdict and judgment finding her guilty of Criminal Solicitation to Commit Murder and sentencing her to twelve (12) years imprisonment. Upon review, we affirm.

Morris V Com.,2004-CA-002482 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Jeffrey Allen Morris appeals pro se the denial by Pulaski Circuit Court of his Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42 motion seeking to have his conviction set aside. Morris pleaded guilty to complicity to commit the murder of Pulaski County Sheriff Sam Catron. In exchange for his plea, Morris was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years. On appeal Morris contends his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance which warrants reversal of his conviction.

Morris v Com., 2005-CA-001754 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

This appeal is before us upon a jury verdict convicting John Morris of third-degree burglary. He was sentenced to two-years imprisonment. Morris raises three issues. The first relates to a potential juror whom the defense sought to excuse for cause. The other two issues concern the wording of the jury instructions. We affirm.

Morrison v Com.,2005-CA-002406 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Greg Morrison appeals from a judgment of the Scott Circuit Court convicting him of first offense driving under the influence and first-degree manslaughter and sentencing him to ten years’ imprisonment. Morrison entered a conditional guilty plea to the charges after the trial court denied his request for a motion to exclude any evidence of the accident victim’s pregnancy at the time of her death. Having reviewed the arguments and the law on the issue, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

Morrow II v Com., 2005-CA-000400 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Dalton Morrow II, appeals, pro se, the Warren Circuit Court’s denial of his motion to vacate sentence pursuant to RCr 11.42. We affirm the circuit court, which found that defense counsel was not ineffective such that the sentence should be vacated.

Morton v Com, 2005-CA-000087 --Not Published ; Affirming Appeal NO. 2005-CA-000087-MR; Reversing and Remanding Appeal NO. 2005-CA-001115-MR; and Affirming Appeal NO. 2005-CA-001146-MR -- PDF

Alphonzo R. Morton, pro se, appeals from three orders of the Fayette Circuit Court. Appeal No. 2005-CA-000087- MR is taken from a December 9, 2004, order denying his motion for jail-time credit; Appeal No. 2005-CA-001115-MR is taken from a May 3, 2005, order denying his motion to compel the Commonwealth to produce a transcript of grand jury proceedings; and Appeal No. 2005-CA-001146-MR is taken from a May 12, 2005, order denying his motion to correct sentence. We affirm Appeal No. 2005-CA-000087-MR, reverse and remand Appeal No. 2005-CA- 001115-MR, and affirm Appeal No. 2005-CA-001146-MR.

Motley v Com.,2005-CA-001028 --Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Derrick Motley appeals his convictions for fleeing or evading police and for being a persistent felony offender in the second degree. Finding no error, we affirm.

Mulliken v Com, 2004-CA-001603 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Terence K. Mulliken appeals his convictions for promoting contraband in the first degree and conspiracy to traffic in a controlled substance. We affirm.

Murrell-Bey v Com, 2004-CA-001891 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Durand Murrell-Bey appeals from an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court denying post-conviction relief, pursuant to Kentucky Criminal Rule (RCr) 11.42, without an evidentiary hearing. Murrell-Bey claims that his defense counsel provided ineffective representation by advising him to plead guilty with a recommendation that his state sentence would run concurrently with any time received on his pending federal charges. However, -2- the federal court subsequently declined to sentence him to concurrent time. Further, Murrell-Bey contends that his attorney should have pursued suppression of the evidence obtained during a warrantless search prior to advising him to plead guilty. We disagree and affirm the trial court’s order.

Musgrove v Com., 2005-CA-000719 -- To be Published ; Reversing and Remanding -- PDF

Benjamin Musgrove has appealed from the judgment and sentence of the McCreary Circuit Court entered on March 7, 2005, following his conviction stemming from a charge of Trafficking in a Controlled Substance First Degree.1 Having concluded that the trial court erred in failing to excuse a disqualified juror during voir dire, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Return to the Main Table of Cases