2007 Unpublished Court of Appeals Opinions Index |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.
Madison v Com, 2006-ca-000379
-- Not To Be Published;
Affirming --
PDF Mainous v Com,2005-ca-002335
--Not To Be Published;
Affirming --
PDF Majors v Com, 2005-CA-002224
-- Not To Be Published;
Affirming --
PDF Martin v Com, 2006-ca-000583
-- Not To Be Published;
Affirming --
PDF Miller v Com, 2006-ca-000137
-- Not To Be Published;
Affirming --
PDF Moe v Com, 2006-CA-000612
-- Not To Be Published;
Affirming --
PDF Mullins v Com, 2005-CA-002003
-- Not To Be Published;
Affirming --
PDF
Kevin Madison appeals pro se from an order entered by the
Jefferson Circuit Court denying his motion seeking credit against his sentence for time
spent in home incarceration prior to sentencing. We affirm.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the
Ballard Circuit Court which revoked Timothy Mainous’s probation
and ordered that he serve twelve months in the Ballard County
Jail. Mainous contends that the court erred when it failed to
consider less severe alternatives to revocation. We affirm.
Dolly R. Majors appeals from a judgment of conviction
and final sentence entered by the Muhlenberg Circuit Court on October 25, 2005. On
October 6, 2005, a jury convicted Dolly of theft by unlawful taking over $300.00, a Class
D felony, and the trial court sentenced Dolly to serve two years in prison. On appeal,
Dolly argues that the evidence presented by the Commonwealth was not sufficient to
support her conviction. Finding that the evidence was sufficient, we affirm.
Leland D. Martin, pro se, has appealed from the March 7, 2006,
denial of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Criminal
Procedure (RCr) 11.42, Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02, writ of error coram nobis,2 and Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 419.020 in the Warren Circuit
Court. We affirm.
Appellant Kelly Frank Miller was found guilty by a jury and was
sentenced to serve 30 years on three counts of First-Degree Assault. The basis of
Appellant's conviction is that he was removed from a bar by the security staff but returned with a gun and shot three people. He sought relief by filing a combined RCr
11.42 and CR 60.02 motion. The trial court denied both motions after hearing testimony.
This appeal followed. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the ruling of the
trial court.
This appeal comes from the denial of an RCr. 11.42 motion to
vacate a judgment due to ineffective counsel. In the underlying case, Appellant was
convicted of first-degree manslaughter, assault under extreme emotional disturbance, and
first-degree assault. He was sentenced to a total of thirty-four years in prison. Appellant
claimed below that his trial counsel was ineffective due to a failure to investigate and
adequately prepare for trial, failure to retain expert witnesses, and failure to tender proper jury instructions. On appeal, Appellant raises only the propriety of the trial court's denial
of appointed counsel and failure to hold an evidentiary hearing.
In this criminal post-conviction action, Charles Mullins has appealed
from the Rockcastle Circuit Court's order denying his motion for relief pursuant to Civil
Rule 60.02 and Criminal Rule 10.26. Perceiving no error, we affirm.
Return
to the Main Table of Cases