2007 Unpublished Court of Appeals Opinions Index |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.
Hager v Com, 2005-ca-002592
-- Not To Be Published;
Affirming --
PDF Hardin v Com, 2005-ca-000051
-- To Be Published;
Affirming --
PDF Hawkins v Com, 2005-ca-002542
--Not To Be Published;
Affirming --
PDF Hensley v Com,2005-ca-001684
-- To Be Published;
Affirming --
PDF HIbbitt II v Com, 2005-CA-001716
-- Not To Be Published;
Affirming --
PDF Howes v Com, 2006-ca-000951
-- Not To Be Published;
Affirming --
PDF Hurley Jr. v Com, 2005-CA-002062
--Not To Be Published;
Affirming --
PDF
Thomas L. Hager, III, appeals from an order of the Pike
Circuit Court which denied his motion for post-conviction relief made pursuant to
Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42. Hager alleges that his plea of guilty
to charges of murder and burglary was involuntary because he was under the influence of
anti-psychotic medication at the time he entered his plea.
Michael Hardin was found guilty of driving
under the influence, first offense,3 (DUI) and failing to have
rear license plate illuminated,4 following a trial by jury in the
Nelson District Court on December 16, 2002. After the convictions were affirmed by the Nelson Circuit Court, this
Court granted discretionary review. Having concluded that the
trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing lay opinion
testimony from a Kentucky State Trooper regarding Hardin’s
performance of certain field sobriety tests and his state of
intoxication, we affirm.
Mitchell Darnell Hawkins was indicted
for murder and first degree burglary. Pursuant to a plea
agreement, on the third day of trial Hawkins entered a guilty
plea to first degree manslaughter and the Commonwealth
recommended fifteen years’ imprisonment and dismissal of the burglary charge. Represented by new counsel, Hawkins appeared
at the sentencing and made an oral motion to withdraw his guilty
plea on the basis that his prior counsel had rendered
ineffective assistance. No request for an evidentiary hearing
was made and the circuit court summarily denied the motion. We
affirm.
A plea agreement in a criminal case is a contract which, upon
performance, is binding on the Commonwealth and entitles a criminal defendant to the
benefit of his bargain, subject to approval by the trial court. The issue we must resolve in
this case is whether the Pulaski Circuit Court erred in its findings as to the terms of a plea
agreement. We hold that it did not, and therefore affirm.
Appellant, Ronald Lee Hibbitt, II, was convicted of seconddegree
assault and second-degree wanton endangerment following a jury trial in Warren
Circuit Court. He entered a conditional guilty plea pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford,
400 U.S. 25 (1970), on the charge of first-degree persistent felony offender (PFO) and
was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Hibbitt argues that: (1) his actual PFO status should have been classified as second-degree; (2) the trial judge should
have recused himself; (3) the trial court improperly admitted expert testimony; and (4) he
was entitled to an instruction on self-defense. We affirm.
Marna Howes appeals from her conditional guilty plea to charges
of illegal possession of a controlled substance. The decision reserved for appeal is the
circuit court's denial of her motion to suppress incriminating evidence seized by a peace
officer following an investigatory stop. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the
circuit court's decision to deny suppression.
Appellant Billy Hurley appeals the Laurel
Circuit Court decision convicting him of possession of a
controlled substance, second offense, and driving under the
influence. Hurley’s pre-trial motion to suppress evidence was
denied. Hurley was found guilty of the charged offenses by a
jury. The Laurel Circuit Court’s determination is affirmed.
Return
to the Main Table of Cases