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.

Sarver v Com, 2003-SC-000288-MR -Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF -

Appellant, Torrence Sarver, was convicted by a Warren Circuit Court jury of trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree and possession of drug paraphernalia. He was sentenced to twenty'years imprisonment on the trafficking charge, enhanced to thirty years upon the jury's finding that he was also a persistent felony offender in the first degree (PFO 1st); and to twelve months on the paraphernalia charge which, pursuant to KRS 532 .110(1)(a), was ordered to run concurrently with the thirty-year sentence . He appeals to this Court as a matter of right, Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b), asserting three claims of error: (1) improper impeachment of a character witness; (2) admission of KRE 404(b) evidence without giving the notice required by KRE 404(c); and (3) insufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction of possession of drug paraphernalia. None of these alleged errors were preserved for appellate review. Finding no violation of Appellant's substantial rights and no occurrence of manifest injustice, we affirm. KRE 103(e); RCr 10.26.

Shabazz v. Com., 2003-SC-000022-MR - To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Rahim Shabazz, was convicted in the McCracken Circuit Court of two felony drug offenses, was found to be a First-Degree Persistent Felony Offender (PFO), and was sentenced to twenty years. Appellant raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the prosecutor's questions to a witness on redirect, a prosecution witness's answers during cross-examination, and the prosecutor's statements during closing argument, all concerning whether Appellant requested that certain aspects of the case be investigated, prejudiced Appellant to such a degree as to require a mistrial ; and (2) whether the prosecutor offered sufficient evidence for the trial court to deny Appellant's motion for directed verdict on the PFO determination . We hold that a mistrial was unnecessary and that the evidence of Appellant's PFO status was sufficient to sustain the verdict, thus we affirm the judgment of the McCracken Circuit Court.

Sherrill v. Com.,2003-SC-000260-MR -Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF -

The Appellant, Joseph Jamar Sherrill, was convicted of violating a domestic violence order (DVO), first degree burglary, and intentional first degree assault. He received two twenty-year sentences to run consecutively for the burglary and assault charges . He was sentenced to twelve months and fined $500.00 for violating the DVO, the twelve months to run concurrently with the other two sentences, for a total sentence of forty years. Sherrill appeals to this court as a matter of right, contending that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of intentional first degree assault. Additionally, he avers that his rights of equal protection and due process were violated when the court allowed him, an African-American, to be tried by an all white jury.Sherrill's insufficiency claim is properly preserved but his equal protection and due process claims are not.

Skaggs v Com,2002-SC-000436-MR -To Be Published, Remanding-- PDF

Herman and Mae Matthews were shot to death in their home on May 6, 1981 . In 1982, a Barren Circuit Court jury convicted Appellant, David Leroy Skaggs, of their murders, as well as of robbery and burglary, and he was sentenced to death. The convictions and sentences were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal in Skaggs v. Commonwealth, 694 S.W.2d 672 (Ky . 1985), cert. denied, Skagggs v. Kentucky, 476 U .S . 1130, 106 S.Ct. 1998, 90 L.Ed.2d 678 (1986) . His subsequent Criminal Rule (RCr) 11 .42 motion was denied, and that denial was also affirmed on appeal. Skag s v. Commonwealth , 803 S.W .2d 573 (Ky. 1990), cert. denied , Skaggs v. Kentucky, 502 U .S. 844, 112 S.Ct . 140, 116 L.Ed.2d 106 (1991) .

Smith v Com., 2004-SC-000402-TG - Not To Be Published, Affirming In Part, Vacating In Part and Remanding -- PDF

This appeal is from a judgment based on a jury verdict that convicted Smith of four counts of second-degree burglary, three counts of receiving stolen property over $300, one count of receiving stolen property under $300, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of marijuana and being a first-degree persistent felony offender. He was sentenced to a total of 70 years in prison . The questions presented are whether the trial judge erred by running the sentences consecutively so that the aggregate exceeded 20 years ; whether Smith was entitled to a directed verdict on the burglary charges; whether a pawn shop receipt was erroneously admitted into evidence; whether the prosecution failed to establish the value of the property on the receiving stolen property charges; and whether the prosecution's alleged comment on the defendant's silence denied him a fair trial.

Smith v Com.,2004-SC-000890-MR -Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

Appellant Henry Thomas Smith was convicted in the Kenton County Circuit Court on October 7, 2004 for the offense of First Degree Burglary. He was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment and now appeals to this Court as a matter of right, Ky. Const. 11 0(2)(b), asserting three claims of error: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain a burglary conviction ; (2) Appellant's presumption of innocence was denied ; and (3) the trial court erred by admitting evidence of Appellant's other crimes or bad character. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.

Steward v. Com., 2003-SC-000359-MR - To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

This appeal is from a decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed an order of the circuit court dismissing a pro se petition by Stewart for declaratory judgment after the Parole Board reversed its decision to parole him. The questions presented by Stewart involve whether the denial of parole was unlawful in that the Parole Board violated various statutes, exercised power arbitrarily and unconstitutionally applied statutes in an ex post facto manner. The real issue involved in this case concerns the scope and authority of the Parole Board in rendering a decision to deny parole to a prison inmate .

Stewart v. Com., 2003-SC-000602-MR -Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

On remand from this Court pursuant to an unpublished opinion rendered October 17, 2002, Stewart v. Commonwealth, 1999-SC-103-MR, the trial court reinstated the convictions of Appellant, Thomas Eugene Stewart, for first degree robbery and first degree burglary. Upon re-trial, a jury of the Hardin Circuit Court convicted Appellant of second degree manslaughter and fourth degree assault. For these crimes, Appellant was sentenced to a total of forty 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 .

Stidham v Com, 2003-SC-000211-MR - NotTo Be Published, Affirming -- PDF -

Appellant, Larry Stidham, was convicted of the murder of Steve Marcum in the Clay Circuit Court . He was sentenced to life imprisonment and appeals to this Court as a matter of right. On December 16, 2001, Appellant and Steve Marcum were on Appellant's property during the day consuming alcohol. Late that night, Appellant drove Marcum to Peggy Stewart's home, where Marcum was residing. Appellant opened the car door to let Marcum out of the vehicle. When Marcum exited, Appellant shot him three times in the head . One shot was to the back of the head . Appellant took some money and a knife from Marcum and drove away. Appellant and his son, James Stidham, fled to Ohio where they remained for several days . Upon returning to Kentucky, they went to the home of Mary Henson . Henson contacted the police, and Appellant was arrested . Appellant alleged at trial that he shot Marcum in self-defense after Marcum had stolen his money and attacked him with a knife.

Stopher v. Com., 2003-SC-000710-OA - To Be Published, Denying Petition For Writ of Mandamus -- PDF -

Petitioner filed an RCr 11 .42 motion and requested an ex parte hearing under KRS 31 .185 at which he would seek funds for an expert to support his motion . The trial court denied Petitioner's request, and he now petitions this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to conduct an ex parte hearing on his request for such funds . Because we find that the statutory entitlement to funds for an expert does not extend to post-conviction proceedings, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus .