Find older SCT and COA Opinions (Locate by date or by case name)

See this month's Supreme Court Opinions

Ard v. Com.; 1999-CA-000539-MR; Not Published; Vacated and Remanded.

Robert Ard was found guilty of first-degree sexual abuse and sentenced to six years imprisonment. His sentence was suspended and he was placed on supervised probation for a period of five years. Appellant alleges that the Commonwealth did not prove four separate acts against one of the victims and that his conviction on those counts violated the double jeopardy clause. He also contends that the trial court erred when it prohibited him from introducing prior inconsistent statements made by two of the victims' mothers, and that it erred in admitting statements made by appellant and not provided in discovery. We reverse and remand.

This is an appeal from an order entered by the Jefferson Circuit Court denying a CR 60.02 (f) motion which sought to modify a judgment sentencing appellant to twenty-two years imprisonment. For the reasons stated hereafter, we affirm.

The Commonwealth of Kentucky appeals from a pretrial order of the Carter Circuit Court granting Chad Blevins' motion in limine and holding that marijuana seized at the scene of an automobile accident is inadmissible at trial. Because we believe the trial court abused its discretion, we reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand.

Davis contends the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, Davis maintains that his 1997 juvenile adjudication for possession of marijuana while in possession of a firearm was improperly considered a prior felony "conviction" under KRS 635.020(3). Davis admits that the issue was not brought to the attention of the district or circuit courts. Rather, he raises the issue of subject matter jurisdiction for the first time on appeal. The Commonwealth urges this Court not to consider the jurisdictional issue as Davis waived same in the lower courts. We disagree.

Vernon Davis brings this appeal from a judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court entered August 31, 1999, upon a conditional plea of guilty pursuant to Ky. R. Crim. P. 8.09. We affirm.

Appellant James Desmon (Desmon) appeals the denial of his CR 60:02 motion, which attacked the validity of his plea bargain agreement and the sentence rendered thereon. Finding no error, we dismiss.

Scott Etheredge appeals pro se from an order denying his motion to vacate or correct sentence brought pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42. We affirm.

George Harrison appeals from a judgment based on a jury verdict finding him guilty of receiving stolen property and being a second-degree persistent felony offender and sentencing him to seven years' imprisonment. To establish the value of the stolen property, the Commonwealth offered the testimony of the owner of the toolboxes, his wife and a tractor supply sales clerk. The owner and sales clerk testified that the toolboxes had a value in excess of $300.00 and the owner's wife testified that she had purchased the toolboxes for approximately $560.00 several months before they were stolen. Harrison contends that the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting the sales clerk's expert testimony.

Darrell Lewis Leath (Leath) appeals from a conviction of second degree manslaughter, arguing that the trial court committed reversible error in two evidentiary rulings. We affirm.

This is an appeal by Uriah Joseph Price, III, (hereinafter appellant) of his conviction for one count of assault in the second degree pursuant to a guilty plea. On appeal, appellant raises several issues for relief, all of which pertain to the trial court's denial of appellant's request for funds to employ an independent mental health expert. We conclude that appellant did not preserve this issue for appeal and so we affirm appellant's conviction.

In this appeal, appellant raises two issues challenging his conviction. First, appellant alleges that the trial court erred in failing to suppress evidence of his blood alcohol test performed in the hospital subsequent to the accident. Secondly, appellant alleges that his sentences could only be enhanced by a charge of being a persistent felony offender in the second degree, and thus the trial Court erred in refusing to amend the charge. However, when entering his guilty plea, appellant expressly waived his right to appeal.

The sole issue on appeal is whether it was error to deny Williams, motion for a directed verdict based upon his claim of self-protection. KRS 503.050(1).