2007 Unpublished Court of Appeals Opinions Index |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.
Reinhart v Com,2005-CA-001104
-- Not To Be Published;
Affirming --
PDF Reyna v Com, 2005-ca-000757
-- To Be Published;
Affirming --
PDF Roadhouse v Com, 2005-ca-002590
-- Not To Be Published;
Affirming --
PDF
Bryan Lee Reinhardt (Bryan) appeals from a judgment of
conviction entered by the Logan Circuit Court on March 5, 2004 in which Bryan entered
a conditional plea pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160, 27 L.
Ed. 2d 162 (1970) to one count of receiving stolen property over $300.00. In the
judgment of conviction, Bryan reserved the right to appeal the issue of mistaken identity.On appeal, Bryan argues that he “was entitled to suppression of all issues related to
identity.” Finding no error, we affirm his conviction.
Armando Reyna appeals from an order of the
Montgomery Circuit Court denying his motion filed pursuant to CR 60.02 seeking to
vacate a judgment of conviction entered after he pleaded guilty to assault under extreme
emotional disturbance. He argues that his plea was not voluntarily, knowingly and
intelligently entered because, at the time he entered his plea, he was unaware that
following the completion of his sentence, he would be permanently deported from the
United States.
Derek Roadhouse appeals from a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit
Court convicting him of possessing anhydrous ammonia in an unapproved container with
intent to manufacture methamphetamine, manufacturing methamphetamine, and
possession of methamphetamine. He was sentenced to a total of fifteen years'
imprisonment after a jury trial. On appeal, Roadhouse argues that the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable that the substance identified as anhydrous ammonia
met the definition of that substance contained in Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS)
250.482(3). After a careful review of the evidence at trial, we find there was sufficient
evidence to survive a motion for directed verdict. Thus, we affirm the trial court.
Return
to the Main Table of Cases