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.

Hale v. Com., 2003-SC-000284-MR - To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

Upon his pleas of guilty to First-Degree Robbery, Second-Degree Assault, Kidnapping, Criminal Attempt to Commit Murder, and to being a First-Degree Persistent Felony Offender, Appellant was sentenced to a total of thirty-years imprisonment. Now, in this appeal, Appellant argues that because the trial court ordered him to submit to a psychological evaluation after he entered his guilty pleas, the trial court thus questioned his competency to stand trial, and therefore, he contends that the trial court erred in accepting his guilty pleas before resolving the competency issue. Additionally, Appellant contends that his pleas were infirm because the trial court failed to conduct a competency hearing after the filing of the report on his mental condition. Because a trial court may order a mental evaluation without having reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial, and because the trial court did not have reasonable grounds--either before or after Appellant's evaluationto believe that Appellant was incompetent to stand trial, the trial court did not err in accepting Appellant's guilty pleas or in not conducting a competency hearing . Accordingly, we affirm Appellant's convictions .

Haley v Com.,2004-SC-000716-MR - Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

ppellant, Bruce Dewayne Haley, was convicted in the Bell Circuit Court of Capital Murder of Michael Ray Dozier, and Assault in the First Degree of Philip Gray. Haley was sentenced to twenty (20) years on the Murder Conviction, and ten (10) years on the Assault in the First Degree conviction, to run consecutively with each other. He appeals to this court as a matter of right. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the convictions.

Hayes v Com., 2004-SC-000109-MR -Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

A jury of the McCracken Circuit Court convicted Appellant, Daniel Hayes, of first degree rape and first degree sexual abuse. For these crimes, Appellant was sentenced to twenty-one years imprisonment. Appellant now appeals to this Court as a matter of right. Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b) . For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm Appellant's convictions. The evidence presented at trial tended to show that upon entering his sixty-eightyear- old stepmother's home by ruse and being permitted to stay the night, Appellant waited for his stepmother to retire for the evening and fall asleep . He then attacked her and tied her to the bedpost. Upon being tied to the bedpost, the victim was raped and sexually abused . Appellant offered his own testimony, admitting that he entered the home and tied the victim to the bedpost, but explaining that he did not penetrate the victim, that the sexual contact was consensual, and that the contact was part of an ongoing affair.

Hayes v Com and Harrison, 2003-SC-000675-MR -2003-SC-0717-MR To Be Published, REVERSING AND REMANDING NO. 2003-SC-0675-MR AND VACATING IN PART AND REVERSING AND REMANDING IN PART NO. 2003-SC-0717-MR -- PDF

Following a one-day trial by jury in the Grayson Circuit Court, Appellants, Johnnie Hayes and John Paul Harrison, were both convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine, KRS 218A.1432, and possession of anhydrous ammonia in an unapproved container with intent to manufacture methamphetamine . KRS 250.489(1) ; KRS 250.991(2). Each of the convictions for manufacturing methamphetamine was "firearm enhanced" to a Class A felony . KRS 218A .992 . Hayes was sentenced to life in prison for his methamphetamine conviction and to fifteen years for his anhydrous ammonia conviction. Harrison was sentenced to twenty-five years for his methamphetamine conviction and to fifteen years for his anhydrous ammonia conviction . Harrison was also convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia, subsequent offense, KRS 218A .500(2),(5), and receiving stolen property valued at $300 .00 or more, KRS 514.110(1),(3), and was sentenced to five years each for those convictions . All of Harrison's sentences were ordered to run consecutively for a total of fifty years.

Heard v. Com. 2003-SC-001031-DG - To Be Published,Remanding -- PDF -

This case comes to us on discretionary review of the Court of Appeals' opinion affirming the judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court, which sentenced Appellant to one year imprisonment, probated for five, on charges of possession of cocaine, marijuana and drug paraphernalia. We granted review to determine whether the trial court erred by denying Appellant's motion to require the Commonwealth to reveal the identity of the confidential informant . After reviewing the record, we remand this case to the trial court for a new hearing consistent with this opinion.

Henchon V Com., 2003-SC-000536-MR - Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Tyler Henchon, was convicted of Complicity to commit Second-Degree Burglary, found to be a Second-Degree Persistent Felony Offender, and was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. He now claims that the trial court erred (1) in failing to give sua sponte a diminished capacity instruction where there was evidence that he had consumed intoxicating drugs prior to committing the crime and (2) in forcing him to testify by not agreeing to instruct the jury as to a lesser-included offense at the end of the Commonwealth's proof. Because the trial court does not have a duty to raise a defense, especially where there is little, if any, evidence to support such a defense, and because Appellant was not forced to testify by the trial court's refusal to agree at the close of the Commonwealth's proof to give an instruction on a lesser-included offense, we affirm Appellant's conviction .

Hensley v. Com., 2003-SC-000470-MR -Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Charles Hensley, Jr., was convicted in the Harlan Circuit Court of firstdegree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals to this Court as a matter of right . Appellant was convicted of stabbing Rocky Haywood to death with a knife. The crime occurred beside an automobile parked in a ditch on the side of the road near Appellant's home. The crime occurred on October 19, 2000 . Additional facts will be set forth as necessary. I . Appellant's first argument on appeal is that the trial court erred when it permitted the Commonwealth to play his taped police statement without redacting the detective's repeated comments stating that he was lying .

Henson v. Com., 2004-SC-000537-MR - Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

A Laurel Circuit Court jury convicted Appellant, Erin Henson, of one count of sexual abuse in the first degree, KRS 510.110, for which he was sentenced to five years in prison, and one count of sodomy in the first degree, KRS 510.070, for which he was sentenced to life in prison . Appellant appeals to this Court as a matter of right, Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b), asserting four claims of reversible error: (1) the admission of testimony regarding uncharged acts of forcible sodomy, (2) the failure to grant a mistrial after a prosecution witness testified that Appellant was a sex offender, (3) the admission of hearsay statements that improperly bolstered the Commonwealth's case, and (4) the impermissible bolstering of the complaining witness's credibility by a police officer. Appellant also asserts that this Court should vacate the sentencing court's order overruling his pro se RCr 11 .42 motion and remand that issue for an evidentiary hearing .

Hermansen v. Com., 2004-SC-001132-MR - Not To Be Published, Denying-- PDF

The Petitioner, Eric Lloyd Hermansen, filed a "Writ of Right in Supersedeas," as an "Original Action" in this Court ostensibly under the authority of CR 60 .03, 60 .05; KRS 21A.050, § 110(2)(a) of the Kentucky Constitiution and/or SCR 1 .020(1)(a), as well as § 2 and 14 of the Bill of Rights of the Kentucky Constitution and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U .S . Constitution . A "Writ of Supersedeas" is an old english Writ "containing a command to stay the proceedings at law." Black's Law Dictonary, 1002 (6th Ed. 1991) . The Petition acknowledges the Petitioner's murder conviction, as well as two (2) convictions for wanton endangerment in the Gallatin Circuit Court on May 21, 1997, and the subsequent direct appeal to this Court, whereupon on September 28, 2000, this Court affirmed his murder conviction, but reversed the wanton endangerment convictions . The Petition for rehearing was denied on December 21, 2000.

Higgins v. Com.,2003-SC-000639-MR -Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF -

On July 24, 2003, Appellant, Gregory E . Higgins, was convicted by a Boone County jury of first degree robbery, third degree assault, and of being a second degree persistent felony offender (PFO) . He was sentenced to twenty (20) years imprisonment on the robbery charge, enhanced to thirty (30) years due to his status as a PFO . He was also sentenced to five (5) years imprisonment on the assault charge, enhanced to seven (7) years imprisonment due to his status as a PFO. The two sentences were ordered to be served consecutively for a total of thirty-seven years imprisonment. This appeal comes before the Court as a matter of right.

Hilbert v Com,2002-SC-000095-MR -To Be Published, Reversing and Remanding -- PDF

Appellant, John T. Hilbert, stands convicted of two counts of murder for the shooting deaths of Danny Wayne Elmore and Joe Eddie Stump. The jury fixed the sentence for the murder of Elmore at twenty-seven (27) years . After finding aggravating circumstances in the murder of Stump, the jury fixed Appellant's sentence for this separate crime at life without the benefit of probation or parole for twenty-five (25) years. The jury recommended that each sentence run consecutively, but following Appellant's motion that such a sentencing arrangement would exceed the statutory maximum, the trial judge entered an order .for the sentences to run concurrently . Appellant now appeals to this Court as a matter of right. The shootings occurred at the mobile home of Appellant's estranged girlfriend, Karen Poole. Karen shared the trailer with her sister Tammy, and on the evening of the shootings, Karen asked Appellant to be their "designated driver." While out, the sisters met Elmore and Stump, and invited them home. Back at the trailer, Appellant and the two victims danced with Karen and Tammy, and according to statements Appellant and Karen later gave to police, tensions soon rose .

Hill v. Com., 2004-SC-000563-MR -Not To Be Published,Affirming -- PDF -

A jury of the Hardin Circuit Court convicted Appellant, Rory K. Hill, of First- Degree Assault, two counts of Second-Degree Wanton Endangerment, First-Degree Trafficking in a Controlled Substance while in Possession of a Firearm (second offense), Possession of a Handgun by a Convicted Felon, and being a Second-Degree Persistent Felony Offender. For these crimes, Appellant was sentenced to a total of thirty years imprisonment. Appellant now appeals to this Court as a matter of right. Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b) . For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm Appellant's convictions.

Hillyard v. Com., 2002-SC-000702-MR - To Be Published, Affirming In Part And Vacating In Part -- PDF

Appellant, Kevin Ray Hillard, was convicted by an Ohio Circuit Court jury of one count of unlawful transaction with a minor in the first degree, KRS 530.064(1), a Class B felony, for knowingly inducing A.W., age fifteen, to engage in illegal sexual activity; and one count of unlawful transaction with a minor in the third degree, KRS 530.070(1)(a), a Class A misdemeanor, for knowingly giving an alcoholic beverage to N .M., age seventeen. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison for the felony conviction and to twelve months in the Ohio County Detention Center and a $500.00 fine for the misdemeanor. He appeals to this Court as a matter of right, Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b), asserting reversible error in the following respects : (1) insufficiency of the evidence to sustain either conviction; (2) exclusion of evidence of the victim's sexual history ; (3) juror misconduct when a prospective juror failed to answer questions propounded during voir dire ; and (4) prosecutorial misconduct consisting of (a) the issuance of extrajudicial subpoenas to require two witnesses to appear at the prosecutor's office for ex arte interviews ; (b) intimidation of a defense witness by threatening to charge the witness with perjury; (c) failure to provide discovery of notes taken during a witness interview that were used during cross-examination of the witness at trial; and (d) use of those notes to introduce into evidence the unsworn statements of the witness. The Commonwealth concedes that the evidence was insufficient to convict Appellant of the offense of unlawful transaction with a minor in the third degree. Thus, we vacate the conviction and sentences imposed for that offense. Finding no other reversible error, we affirm the conviction and sentence imposed for unlawful transaction with a minor in the first degree .

Holland v. Com., 2004-SC-000111-MR - Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Carl Holland, was convicted by a McCracken County jury of firstdegree burglary, three counts of first-degree wanton endangerment, first-degree possession of a controlled substance, and being a first-degree persistent felony offender (PFO). He was sentenced to a total of twenty years' imprisonment. He appeals to this Court as a matter of right, asserting the following trial court errors: (1) improper use of a recalled juror, and (2) improper introduction of a witness's prior written statement. We affirm.

Holloway v Com,2003-SC-000089-MR -Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

This appeal is from a judgment based on a jury verdict which convicted Holloway of intentional murder, kidnapping, and first-degree robbery. He was sentenced to life without parole on the murder conviction, life without parole for twenty-five years on the kidnapping conviction, and twenty years on the robbery conviction.

Hooten v Jennings(Judge) v Com., 2004-SC-000871-MR - Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

On April 21, 2004, the Clark District Court established probable cause that Tasia Hooten committed an offense falling within the purview of KRS 635.020(2), (3), (5), (6), (7), or (8). Thus, the District Court had the option to proceed with juvenile jurisdiction or to transfer the case to Circuit Court. After weighing the eight factors necessary to determine if transferring the case to Circuit Court was proper pursuant to KRS 640.010(2)(b), the Clark District Court waived juvenile court jurisdiction and transferred the case to Clark Circuit Court. Tasia Hooten was sixteen years old at the time she participated in the crime . On April 8, 2004, she and her two cousins took part in the robbery of a Best Western Hotel in Winchester, Kentucky . Evidence presented at the youthful offender hearing established that Tasia went into the hotel asking for room rates just before it was robbed. One of Tasia's cousins/co-defendants allegedly raped the hotel clerk. Tasia matched the physical description given to the police and was implicated by her cousins (co-defendants) in the robbery.

Howell v. Com., 2002-SC-001064-MR - To Be Published, AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART, AND REMANDING AS TO 2002-SC-1064-MR AND REVERSING AND REMANDING AS TO 2003-SC-0219-TG -- PDF

On October 30, 2002, a Kenton Circuit Court jury convicted Appellant, Larry Howell, of trafficking in a controlled substance in or near a school, KRS 218A.1411, and of unlawful transaction with a minor in the second degree, KRS 530.065, both Class D felonies, and of being a persistent felony offender in the first degree (PFO I), KRS 532 .080(3) . By final judgment of November 13, 2002, Appellant was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. On December 11, 2002, Appellant appealed to this court from that judgment as a matter of right, Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b), asserting reversible error due to: (1) prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire and opening statement; and (2) failure to dismiss the PFO I count when the Commonwealth failed to prove by competent evidence that Appellant was over the age of eighteen at the time of his commission of a prior offense essential to the charge .

Hummel v Com.,2004-SC-000762-MR - Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

Robert John Hummel, Sr. was convicted on three counts of incest involving acts of deviate sexual intercourse with his two granddaughters, A.H . and N .H ., who were both minors at the time. He appeals to this Court as a matter of right. Hummel argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a directed verdict because there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction . In addition, he argues that improper cross-examination of defense witnesses and improper comments during closing argument by the prosecution resulted in substantial prejudice and a denial of due process. We disagree, and affirm Hummel's conviction .

Humphrey v. Com., 2003-SC-000671-TG -Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

These appeals are from the findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment entered by the Kenton Circuit Court that overruled the motion of Humphrey for relief pursuant to CR 60.02 and overruled the motion of Wilson to intervene . The circuit judge also determined that the motion of Wilson for immediate and full access to the file, exhibits and videotape court records was moot.