2006 Unpublished Court of Appeals Opinions Index |
|
|
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.
V.B., A Child Under Eighteen v Com.,2005-CA-000758
--Not Published,Dismissing --
PDF
Vaughn v Com.,2005-CA-002259
-- Not Published, Affirming --
PDF
Voyles V Com.,2004-CA-002125
--Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF
V.B., a child under 18, has appealed from an
order of the Fayette Family Court entered on March 8, 2005,
which released him from custody and placed him under the
supervision of the Division of Youth Services through the
remainder of the 2004-2005 school year. Having concluded that
it is impossible for this Court to grant actual or practical
relief to V.B., we dismiss the appeal as moot.
Gary Dean Vaughn appeals from an
order of the Laurel Circuit Court denying his motion for a new
trial under CR3 61.02. Because Vaughn was procedurally precluded
from seeking relief in the manner he chose, we affirm.
Trent Voyles appeals from an order of the Ohio
Circuit Court denying his pro se Motion to Vacate Judgment or
Portion of Judgment Pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil
Procedure (“CR”) 60.02(e) & (f). Voyles bases his motion on 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 manufacture of the drug. For the reasons stated herein, we
conclude that Voyles is not entitled to the relief he seeks and
thus, we affirm.
Return
to the Main Table of Cases