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.

Wagner v. Com., 2003-SC-000770-MR - Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Terrance Lee Wagner, then age eighteen, was arrested on June 18, 2000, at the home of his foster parents, Joseph and Martha B ., after attempting to anally sodomize their four-year-old daughter, J.B. Following a bench trial in the Hardin Circuit Court, Appellant was convicted of Criminal Attempt to Commit Sodomy in the First Degree, KRS 506 .010; KRS 510 .070(1)(b)(2), and sentenced to twenty years in prison . He appeals to this court as a matter of right, Ky. Const § 110(2)(b), asserting that the trial court committed reversible error by: (1) finding that he was competent to stand trial ; and (2) overruling his motion to suppress his confession . Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Washington v. Com., 2003-SC-000703-MR - Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Noel Washington, was convicted in the Kenton Circuit Court of the first-degree rape of a minor less than twelve years of age. He was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment and appeals to this Court as a matter of right. Appellant alleges that eight errors warrant reversal of his conviction : (1) exclusion of testimony by the victim's five-year-old sister; (2) exclusion of evidence of victim's sexual behavior; (3) admission of improper KRE 404(b) evidence ; (4) violation of Appellant's right of confrontation by application of KRS 421 .350; (5) admission of improper hearsay testimony; (6) failure to grant a directed verdict ; (7) failure to amend or dismiss the indictment; and (8) failure to investigate allegations of sleeping jurors. Finding no error, we affirm.

Waterbury v.Com., 2004-SC-000408-MR -Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

On December 18, 2002, Appellant, Harry Allen Waterbury, shot and killed Jerry Moore in the living room of Appellant's residence . A Jefferson Circuit Court jury subsequently convicted Appellant of murder for which he was sentenced to twenty years in prison . He appeals to this Court as a matter of right, Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b), asserting that the prosecutor, during closing argument, commented on his failure to testify, thus violating his Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination . It is undisputed that Appellant killed Moore. The only issue at trial was Appellant's culpable mens rea, if any. The trial court instructed the jury on both intentional and wanton murder, KRS 507.020(1)(a) and (b) ; on manslaughter in the first degree, KRS 507.030(1)(a) (unintentional killing with intent to cause serious physical injury) ; on manslaughter in the second degree, KRS 507.040; and on reckless homicide, KRS 507.050 . Appellant did not request or tender an instruction on selfprotection .

Weaver v. Com., 2003-SC-000353-MR - To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals determining that the trial court erred in dismissing a second-degree escape charge. Discretionary review was granted . For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

Welborn v. Com., 2002-SC-001071-MR - To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

This appeal is from a judgment based on a jury verdict that found Welborn guilty but mentally ill of three counts of first-degree assault and one count of disarming a police officer. He was sentenced to a total of thirty-five years in prison . The questions presented are whether it was error to submit to the jury three separate charges of first-degree assault; whether it was error to allow the prosecution to play for the jury a video statement made by Welborn to police shortly after the offense; whether it was error to inform the jury during voir dire of the future consequences of returning verdicts of not guilty by reason of insanity and guilty but mentally ill ; whether it was error to prohibit the introduction of medical reports related to insanity at the time of the assault; whether there was prosecutorial error in closing arguments; whether it was error to deny a motion for directed verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity; whether it was error not to grant a motion for change of venue and not to grant a motion for new trial; and whether the cumulative effect of the alleged errors deprived Welborn of a fair trial .

Westerfield V Com., 2003-SC-000380-MR - Not To Be Published,Affirming -- PDF

Appellant was convicted in the Warren Circuit Court of first-degree robbery, firstdegree sodomy, two counts of kidnapping, three counts of first-degree sexual abuse, one count of fourth-degree assault, and for being a second-degree persistent felony offender. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and appeals to this Court as a matter of right.

White V Com., 2004-SC-000082-MR - To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Kenneth White, was found guilty of Complicity to Murder Sam Catron, the Pulaski County Sheriff. He raises five claims of error: (1) that the prosecutor was allowed to introduce significant evidence of other crimes in violation of KRE 404(b) ; (2) that the aggravating circumstance-that Sheriff Catron was a sheriff involved in the performance of his duties-was not supported by the evidence and should not have been submitted to the jury; (3) that the prosecutor failed to give adequate notice of the evidence of aggravating circumstances to be offered as required by KRS 532 .025(1)(a); (4) that the trial court improperly refused his motion for a continuance; and (5) that the trial court improperly refused to give the jury an instruction on facilitation of murder, a lesser-included offense of the complicity charge. Finding no merit to these claims, we affirm Appellant's conviction .

Williams v Com., 2004-SC-000421-MR - Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

This appeal is from a judgment based on a conditional guilty plea that convicted Williams of first-degree rape, first-degree sodomy, kidnapping, first-degree burglary, first-degree robbery, theft by unlawful taking over $300, second-degree burglary, two counts of receiving stolen property under $300 and operating a motor vehicle without an operator's license . He was sentenced to a total of twenty-five years in prison . The questions presented are whether the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the motion by Williams for a continuance and whether Williams was entitled to substitution of counsel.

Williams v. Com., 2003-SC-001024-MR - To Be Published,Affirming in Part and Reversing and Remanding in Part -- PDF -

This appeal is from a judgment based on a jury verdict which convicted Williams of four counts of use of a minor in a sexual performance. He was sentenced to ten years on each count to run consecutively for a total of 40 years. The issues presented in this appeal are as follows: 1) refusal of the trial judge to grant a directed verdict on all charges; 2) violation of double jeopardy rights ; 3) erroneous admission of evidence of other pornographic images; 4) failure of the trial judge to require a special verdict on the issue of obscenity; 5) failure to instruct on the definition of "to engage in"; 6) erroneous use of "knowingly" rather than "intentionally" in the instructions; 7) failure to instruct on voyeurism; and, 8) the use of a nonfinal conviction during the sentencing phase. This case arises from a series of six digital photographs taken by Williams of his eight-year-old stepdaughter on or about January 22, 2001 . Of the four photographs upon which the convictions are based, two show the stepdaughter in various stages of undress, one depicts her sitting naked on the side of the bathtub and another reveals her standing naked in the shower. A fifth photograph depicts the stepdaughter wrapped in a towel, and a sixth was determined to be duplicative of another.

Willis v Com., 2004-SC-000032-MR -Not To Be Published,Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Ted Willis, was convicted by a Daviess Circuit Court jury of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of anhydrous ammonia in an unapproved container, and of being a subsequent offender of the offense of manufacturing methamphetamine. He appeals to this Court as a matter of right from a sentence of sixty-nine years' imprisonment.

Wilson v. Com., 2003-SC-000601-MR -Not To Be Published,Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Benjamin David Wilson, was convicted of four counts of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, found to be a Second-Degree Persistent Felony Offender, and sentenced to twenty years in prison. His sole claim of error on appeal is that the trial court improperly denied his motion for directed verdict . Because there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's guilty verdict, the verdict was not "clearly unreasonable," and we affirm the judgment.

Wingate v Com,2003-SC-000206-TG -Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

A Fayette Circuit Court jury convicted Appellant, Latimus Juan Wingate, of one count of first-degree manslaughter for the homicide of Anthony Taylor, and one count of tampering with physical evidence . Appellant was sentenced to twenty-one years to run concurrently with his federal sentence on an unrelated crime. He belatedly appealed to this Court as a matter of right,' asserting five claims of reversible error: (1) that the trial court erred when it excused a juror on the second day of trial for being late ; (2) that the trial court erred in denying Appellant's pro se motion for "writ of error for equal protection of right to factual calculation of `jail time credit' and/or time served upon date of arrest;" (3) that the jury instructions were so erroneous on homicide and the defense of self-protection as to constitute palpable error; (4) that there was insufficient evidence that Appellant committed first-degree manslaughter; and (5) that there was insufficient evidence that Appellant tampered with physical evidence . Discovering no reversible error, we affirm .

Wood v. Com., 2003-SC-000535-MR - Published, Affirming -- PDF

Following a jury trial, Appellant, Nathaniel Wood, was convicted of capital murder, capital kidnapping, kidnapping, first-degree criminal trespass, second-degree assault, and violation of a protective order. The Barren Circuit Court sentenced him to the following : life without the benefit of parole for the capital murder and capital kidnapping charges, twenty years for the kidnapping charge, twelve months for the trespass charge, five years for the assault charge, and twelve months for violation of the protective order. He appeals to this Court as a matter of right, raising nine issues for review. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm .

Woodall v. Com., 2004-SC-000931-MR - Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

In April 1998, Appellant, Robert Keith Woodall, entered a guilty plea for the murder, rape, and kidnapping of high school honor student Sarah Hansen . On July 20, 1998, the jury recommended a death sentence on the capital murder charge along with two consecutive life sentences for the rape and kidnapping charges. The trial court entered a final judgment according to the jury's sentence on September 4, 1998 . The judgment was affirmed on appeal . Woodall v. Commonwealth, 63 S.W.3d 104 (Ky. 2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S . 835, 123 S.Ct. 145,154 L.Ed .2d 54 (2002). In December 2002, Appellant filed an RCr 11 .42 motion which was denied by the trial court in April 2003. The subject of this appeal, however, is Appellant's request for relief under CR 60 .02(f) . The trial court denied Appellant's request without an evidentiary hearing and issued an order detailing its findings. In this appeal, Appellant claims the trial court erred in denying his request for a new trial .

Woodall v Com,2003-SC-000475-MR - Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

This is an appeal from a denial of RCr 11 .42 relief in a death penalty case. In Woodall v. Commonwealth, 63 S.W.3d 104 (Ky. 2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S . 835, 123 S .Ct. 145, 154 L.Ed .2d 54 (2002), this Court affirmed Appellant's, Robert Keith Woodall's, convictions entered in the Caldwell Circuit Court . Appellant had pled guilty to the charges of murder, rape, and kidnapping of a female high school honor student. A jury sentencing trial returned a verdict of a recommended death sentence on the capital murder charge along with two consecutive life sentences for the rape and kidnapping charges . Appellant subsequently requested relief under CR 60.02(f). The trial court denied Appellant's request and it is currently on appeal to this Court. 2004-SC-931-MR. In this appeal, Appellant asserts seven trial court errors as well as twelve claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Woolbright v Com, 2003-SC-000368-MR - Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

Appellant, Gary R. Woolbright, was convicted of wanton murder, receiving stolen property (anhydrous ammonia) with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, firstdegree trafficking in a controlled substance (methamphetamine), and first-degree possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) following a jury trial. He was sentenced to 30, 10, 10, and 5 years' imprisonment, respectively . All terms of years were ordered to run consecutively for a total of 55 years' imprisonment. He enters this appeal as a matter of right, raising eight issues. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm

Wright v Com., 2005-SC-000122-MR -Not To Be Published, Affirming -- PDF

This appeal is from a conditional guilty plea pursuant to RCr 8.09. The circuit judge entered a judgment of conviction of manufacturing methamphetamine and sentenced Wright to twenty years in prison . The sole issue is whether Wright was denied his right against unreasonable searches and seizures when the circuit judge overruled the motion to suppress the search . Wright was indicted for manufacturing methamphetamine while in the possession of a handgun, possession of a handgun by a convicted felon and as a firstdegree persistent felony offender. He entered a plea agreement with the prosecution by which the Commonwealth agreed to dismiss Counts 2 and 3 of the indictment, to omit the handgun enhancement and to recommend a twenty-year sentence. Wright entered a conditional guilty plea pursuant to the plea agreement, preserving the right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion.