2007 Unpublished Court of Appeals Opinions Index

Table of Cases
S

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.

Saylers v Com, 2005-CA-002073 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

This is an appeal from an order denying Appellant’s RCr 11.42 motion alleging an involuntary guilty plea, ineffective counsel, and lack of knowledge to all the charges he was pleading to. This Court affirms the lower court.

Seivers v Com, 2006-ca-000048 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Christopher Seivers, pled guilty to three counts of theft by deception over $300.00, one count of obtaining or attempting to obtain controlled substances by fraud, and one count of giving a false name for an identification card. The Owen Circuit Court accepted his guilty plea and entered judgment in accordance with the agreement. Seivers received four years’ imprisonment, a $1,000.00 fine, and was ordered to pay $1,200.00 in restitution. This appeal follows.

Self v Com, 2005-ca-002234 -- Not To Be Published; REversing and Remanding -- PDF

Henry Lawrence appeals from a judgment of the Warren Circuit Court finding him guilty of first-degree trafficking. He argues the trial court erred in denying his motions for a directed verdict due to the lack of credibility of the Commonwealth's eyewitnesses. However, the Kentucky Supreme Court has previously determined that “judgment as to the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence are left exclusively to the jury.” Fairrow v. Commonwealth, 175 S.W.3d 601, 609 (Ky. 2005). Consequently, the trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Settles v Com, 2006-CA-000051 --Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Roy Settles, pro se, has appealed from an order entered by the Fayette Circuit Court on December 13, 2005, which denied his pro se motion pursuant to CR3 60.20(f) to vacate his sentence pursuant to a judgment entered on August 14, 1984. Having concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Settles the extraordinary relief he seeks, we affirm.

Sheckles Jr. v Com, 2003-CA-001624 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

William A. Sheckles, Jr. was charged with assault in the first degree and persistent felony offender in the second degree. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to the amended charges of assault in the second degree and persistent felony offender in the second degree. He appeals from the circuit court’s summary denial of his two post-conviction motions; the first, was a CR 60.02 in which he claimed that the prior conviction used to enhance his sentence was invalid and the second was an RCr 11.42 motion in which he claimed that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.2 We affirm both orders.

Spears v Com, 2005-ca-001206 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Gregory Spears, appeals as a matter of right from the Fulton Circuit Court’s denial of his motion for RCr 11.42 relief. Appellant claims that he is entitled to relief due to the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. We conclude that the allegations contained in Appellant’s motion can be refuted from the face of the record and thus, the trial court properly denied the motion.

Spurling v Com, 2006-ca-000551 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Leo Spurling appeals the February 15, 2006 judgment of the Lyon Circuit Court denying his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence pursuant to Kentucky RCr 11.42 and Kentucky CR 60.02(d) (e) & (f). Spurling alleges in June 1989 a Lyon County jury was misinformed as to the length of a sentence he had received for a previous murder conviction on September 13, 1983. Both parties concede there is no dispute as to the facts which this Court must consider in determining whether the motions pursuant to RCr 11.42 or CR 60.02 should have been granted. Having considered those facts and the record from below, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Stacey v Com, 2006-ca-000645 -- Not To Be Published; Vacating -- PDF

The single issue in this appeal is whether the trial judge erred in amending a criminal conviction more than six years after the judgment became final. Because there is no doubt that the trial judge acted without jurisdiction, the order amending the judgment must be vacated as void.

Stone v Com, 2005-CA-001007 --Not To Be Published; Reversing and Remanding -- PDF

Michael Stone appeals from a Jefferson Circuit Court judgment convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and tampering with physical evidence. On appeal, Stone argues that his Sixth Amendment rights to confrontation were violated when a redacted statement made by a non-testifying codefendant was introduced against him.
Return to the Main Table of Cases