2006 Unpublished Court of Appeals Opinions Index

Table of Cases
R

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.

Rankin v Com., 2005-CA-000210 -- Not Published ;Affirming -- PDF

Matthew K. Rankin appeals from a January 14, 2005, judgment of the McCracken Circuit Court upon a guilty plea to third-degree criminal mischief and a conditional guilty plea to theft by unlawful taking over $300.00. We affirm.

Rankin v Com.,2005-CA-001772 -- Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Appellant Jonathan Rankin entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of cocaine and second degree persistent felony offender. He received a sentence of five years’ imprisonment. Rankin argues that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained by police from his person during a stop and frisk search. Finding that the stop was reasonable, we affirm.

Reagan v Com.,2005-CA-000586 --Not Published,Affirming -- PDF

Clinton K. Reagan and Shawn Malone escaped from the Bell County Forestry Camp in Laurel County, entered David L. Shafer’s residence, killed Shafer, and took Shafer’s vehicle. Reagan was indicted on five counts including murder, robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, theft by unlawful taking over $300, and being a persistent felony offender in the first degree. The Commonwealth sought the death penalty.

Redding Sr. V Com.,2004-CA-002549 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Dan Redding, Sr., appeals a judgment by the Pike Circuit Court finding that he failed to register as a sex offender and sentencing him to serve five years. The Pike Circuit Court judgment is affirmed.

Reed v Com.,2005-CA-000979 -- Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Michael Reed appeals the Fayette Circuit Court’s denial of his CR2 60.02 motion. He argues that the sentence imposed upon him exceeded the statutory maximum. We disagree and affirm.

Richie v Com.,2005-CA-001801 -- Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Anthony Wayne Richie appeals from a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court convicting him of possession of cocaine, possession of marijuana, disorderly conduct, and firstdegree persistent felony offender. Having concluded that the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress, we affirm.

Riley V Com.,2004-CA-002500 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Stanley Riley appeals from a November 22, 2004 judgment of the Campbell Circuit Court sentencing him to ten years imprisonment. Upon review, we affirm.

Roberts v Com.,2005-CA-000151 --Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Stanley W. Roberts appeals pro se from the denial of his motion under Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42 to vacate or set aside his sentence. Roberts entered an Alford plea to manslaughter in the first degree and received fifteen years’ imprisonment in January 2004. On appeal, Roberts contends that his counsel incorrectly advised him that he would have the right to appeal if he entered an Alford plea. The Pulaski Circuit Court denied the motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

Robinson v Com, 2003-CA-002424 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Daphane Robinson appeals from the Ballard Circuit Court’s judgment sentencing her to ten years’ imprisonment after a jury found her guilty of first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance (cocaine). For the following reasons, we affirm.

Robinson v Com.,2005-CA-000327 --Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

David Lee Robinson appeals from an August 12, 2004 order of the Hardin Circuit Court amending his 3-year sentence to run consecutively, rather than concurrently, with a prior 30-year sentence obtained in the Grayson Circuit Court. Robinson specifically challenges the jurisdiction of the circuit court to enter the order, asserting that the amendment of his sentence was barred pursuant to CR1 59.05. Upon review, we affirm.

Rogers V Com.,2005-CA-000901 -- Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Craig Rogers entered a plea of guilty to sodomy in the first degree and, on August 31, 2004, was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. Subsequently he filed an RCr 11.42 motion alleging that his counsel should have requested a psychological evaluation prior to the entry of his guilty plea. The circuit court summarily denied the motion. We affirm.

Rose v Com., 2004-CA-001313 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

This case is on remand from the Kentucky Supreme Court for reconsideration of our prior decision in light of Matheney v. Commonwealth, 191 S.W.3d 599 (Ky. 2006). Our prior decision was based on Kotila v. Commonwealth, 114 S.W.3d 226 (Ky. 2003), which was abrogated by Matheney. In light of Matheney, we affirm the trial court in denying Rose’s motion pursuant to CR 60.02 to vacate his conviction for attempt to manufacture methamphetamine.

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.

Rowland v Com.,2004-CA-002134 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

David Rowland appeals from a judgment of the Breckinridge Circuit Court sentencing him to 15 years’ imprisonment following his conviction on controlled substance and drug paraphernalia possession charges. Upon review, we affirm.

Russell v Com.,2004-CA-001503 --Not Published ; Reversing 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.
Return to the Main Table of Cases