2006 Unpublished Court of Appeals Opinions Index

Table of Cases
T

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.

Taylor v Com, 2004-CA-001738 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

On September 30, 2003, William Lamar Taylor pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary, two counts of third-degree rape, two counts of third-degree sodomy, and thirddegree unlawful transaction with a minor. On November 18, 2003, in accordance with the plea agreement, he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. He now appeals from a summary denial of his RCr 11.42 motion wherein he alleged that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because his counsel did not inform him that he would have to complete a twenty-four month sex offender treatment program before becoming eligible for parole.

Taylor V Com.,2005-CA-000802 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

The single issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s CR 60.02 motion to modify the five-year sentence he received on July 5, 1989 for receiving stolen property. Appellant argues that under KRS 446.110 he is entitled to avail himself of the more lenient sentencing provisions of the amended version of KRS 514.110, which became effective July 15, 1994. Finding no error in the decision of the trial court holding that appellant had been properly sentenced under the statute in place at the time the offence was committed, we affirm the denial of appellant’s motion for CR 60.02 relief.

Taylor v Com.,2005-CA-000067 --Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Jeffery Taylor (Taylor), appeals the McLean Circuit Court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized in a search. We affirm the circuit court ruling.

Taylor v Com.,2005-CA-000428 -- Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Mark Wayne Taylor appeals from the Fayette Circuit Court’s judgment sentencing him to sixteen years’ imprisonment after a jury found him guilty of first-degree burglary. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Taylor v Com.,2005-CA-001637 -- Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Wilbur Taylor appeals from an order of the Fayette Circuit Court denying his motion to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to CR2 60.02. We affirm.

Thomas v Com., 2004-CA-002354 -- Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Kenneth W. Thomas appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the Hardin Circuit Court. Thomas was convicted of two counts of trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree, one count of trafficking in a controlled substance near a school and of being a persistent felony offender. Finding no error, we affirm.

Thomas V Com.,2005-CA-000224 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Francis Gerald Thomas appeals from the Jefferson Circuit Court’s denial of his RCr1 11.42 motion. On review, we affirm.

Thompson v Com.,2005-CA-002178 -- Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

The opinion of the trial court correctly and adequately sets out the applicable facts and law in this case. We therefore adopt that opinion as our own: On May 2, 2005, Defendant filed a pleading entitled “Petition for Writ Venire Facias De Novo” asking the Court to vacate his sentence and conduct a sentencing hearing pursuant to K.R.S. 532.025. In support of his Petition, Defendant claims that he was: “precluded and/or denied by the trial court his statutory and procedural right to present mitigating evidence to the Court and/or a capital sentencing jury pursuant to K.R.S. 532.025(1) as mandated, being charged with Murder under K.R.S. 507.020(2); resulting in a structural error of first magnitude which abdicated Mr. Thompson’s 6th, 8th and 14th Amendment, U.S. Constitutional Rights as herein specifically averred.

Thompson v Com, 2005-CA-000429 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Monty Thompson appeals from a single order of the Calloway Circuit Court denying two motions, one made pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42 and the other pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02. In both motions, Thompson sought to vacate his conviction stemming from charges related to the manufacturing of methamphetamine. Thompson raises only one issue on appeal – that his conviction must be set aside pursuant to the Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision in Kotila v. Commonwealth, 114 S.W.3d 226 (Ky. 2003), which held that a defendant could not be convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine if he possessed some, but not all, of the chemicals or equipment necessary for the drug’s manufacture. As Kotila is no longer the law in the Commonwealth, we conclude that Thompson is not entitled to the relief he seeks and, thus, we affirm.

Tinsley v Com.,2005-CA-000361 -- Published ; Reversing and Remanding -- PDF

James Arthur Tinsley appeals from a “Final Judgment and Order Imposing Sentence” of the Hardin Circuit Court entered upon a jury verdict. Tinsley contends that the trial court erred by failing to appoint counsel to represent him in the trial proceedings. Because the trial court improperly denied appointment of counsel based upon the mere fact that a property bond had been posted to secure Tinsley’s release following his indictment; did not apply the factors to determine Tinsley's indigency as provided in KRS 31.120; and, because it is otherwise not determinable from the record whether Tinsley was in fact indigent, we reverse and remand.

Tinsley v Com.,2005-CA-000482 --Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

On August 2, 2004, a Daviess County grand jury indicted James Lawrence Tinsley and Toriano Winstead on one count each of third-degree burglary and being a first-degree persistent felony offender. Following a trial, the jury convicted both men of the charges. The jury fixed Tinsley’s sentence at five years, enhanced to eighteen years by virtue of his status as a PFO I. Similarly, the jury fixed Winstead’s sentence at five years, enhanced to eighteen years by virtue of his status as a PFO I. The trial court imposed the jury’s sentences in both cases. Tinsley and Winstead separately appeal from their convictions, and their appeals have been consolidated before this Court. Finding no error, we affirm in both appeals.

Tokovic v Com, 2004-CA-002619 --Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Senad Tokovic appeals from the November 24, 2004, judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court, in which he was found guilty of Attempting to Escape from a Penitentiary and of being a 2nd degree Persistent Felony Offender, for which offenses he received an enhanced sentence of five years. We affirm.

Townsend v Com.,2005-CA-001291 -- Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Sherman Lewis Townsend appeals the judgment of conviction rendered in Casey Circuit Court reflecting a jury verdict of guilty on one count of first-degree robbery and one count of first-degree burglary. Townsend argues that he was entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal, and maintains that the evidence did not support the Commonwealth’s alternate theories of criminal conduct. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgment on appeal.

Troyer v Com., 2004-CA-002576 --Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Kevin Ray Troyer appeals from the judgment of the Calloway Circuit Court convicting him of trafficking in a controlled substance and sentencing him to prison for two and one-half years. Troyer argues that the trial court erred by denying his motions for directed verdict. We affirm.

Tucker v Com., 2004-CA-002421 -- To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Robert Tucker appeals from a judgment of the Wayne Circuit Court wherein he was convicted of several offenses and was sentenced to 10 years in prison. The judgment was based on a conditional guilty plea entered by Tucker following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The issue involves whether the investigatory stop (Terry stop) that led to Tucker’s arrest and conviction was valid. We affirm.

Turley v Com.,2005-CA-002195 -- Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

David Turley appeals from a conditional guilty plea entered in Franklin Circuit Court on one count each of first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance, second-degree trafficking in a controlled substance, and menacing. Turley filed a motion to suppress the evidence, and argues that the trial court erred in ruling that his arrest and subsequentsearch were lawful. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin Circuit Court.

Tyler V Com.,2005-CA-000191 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

A McCracken Circuit Court jury convicted Edmund Lee Tyler (Edmund) of one count of tampering with physical evidence, one count of possession for sale of a simulated controlled substance, and being a persistent felony offender in the second degree (PFO II). In accordance with the jury’s recommendation, the trial court sentenced him to three years on the tampering charge, a $250 fine on the possession charge and seven years on the PFO II charge, with the seven year sentence to run in lieu of the other two sentences. He appeals -2- to this Court as a matter of right, contending that the trial court committed reversible error by:...
Return to the Main Table of Cases