Opinions For June 1, 2007
Kentucky Court of Appeals
(A service of the DPA Library)
Find older SCT and COA Opinions
(Locate by date or by case name)
See this month's Supreme Court Opinions

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.

Bluegrass Region

Guy v Com, 2005-CA-002588 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Keith R. Guy was convicted of kidnapping and sodomy in the first degree. He appealed that conviction to the Supreme Court of Kentucky, which affirmed the Fayette Circuit Court's judgment. Pursuant to RCr 11.42, Guy then filed a motion to vacate and/or to set aside the circuit court's judgment. The circuit court denied that motion without a hearing. Guy now appeals from that order. In his appeal, Guy raises essentially two issues: (1) that the trial court erred by not holding a hearing on his RCr 11.42 motion; and (2) that his conviction was defective because of ineffective assistance of counsel. The alleged deficiencies by Guy's counsel fall within several general categories: (1) failure to research and utilize the statutory defenses to kidnapping; (2) failure to appropriately address DNA, blood test, and other physical evidence; (3) failure to present evidence of the layout of the house where the sodomy occurred; (4) failure to call witnesses who would have questioned the victim's veracity; (5) failure to obtain independent expert DNA testimony; and (6) failure to contest evidence of rape. Additionally, Guy alleges that his counsel and the Commonwealth conspired against him. For the following reasons, we hold that Guy's appeal has no merit and we affirm.

Morrison V Com.,2005-CA-002602 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Richard D. Morrison appeals from a judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court sentencing him to fifteen-years’ imprisonment and ordering him to pay $445.50 in restitution following his entry of a conditional guilty plea to two counts of robbery and one count of being a persistent felony offender. Morrison contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to suppress statements that he made to a Lexington police detective because they were “fruit of the poisonous tree.”1 After our review, we affirm.

Morrison v Com., 2006-CA-001292 --Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

This appeal is from the summary denial of a post-judgment RCr 11.42 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant (Morrison) was convicted of second-degree burglary, enhanced as a first-degree persistent felon offender. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison. His RCr 11.42 motion was denied by the circuit court and we affirm that decision.

Central Region

Evans v Com.,2005-CA-002201 --Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Guy Evans appeals from an order of the Hardin Circuit Court denying his motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Evans filed a motion, pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney advised him to plead guilty to manufacturing methamphetamine. He claims that the Commonwealth could not have obtained a conviction at trial because he did not possess anhydrous ammonia, a necessary precursor to methamphetamine. Kotila v. Commonwealth, 114 S.W.3d 226 (Ky. 2003), overruled by Matheny v. Commonwealth, 191 S.W.3d 599 (Ky. 2006). We disagree with Evans' contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and, thus, affirm the trial court.

Violett v Com.,2006-CA-000646 --Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Donald Ray Violett, proceeding pro se, appeals from an order of the Warren Circuit Court that denied his motions for post-conviction relief pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42 and Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02. After our review, we affirm.

Eastern Region

Thacker v Com.,2006-CA-000253 --Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Steely Thacker appeals from the denial of his motion for relief filed pursuant to the provisions of Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02. We affirm.

Northern Region

Gall Jr. v Com.,2006-CA-000112 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Eugene Gall appeals from an order of the Boone Circuit Court which denied his motion made pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02. At issue is whether the circuit court abused its discretion in refusing to vacate Gall’s October 6, 1978, murder conviction after a federal district court granted his petition for habeas corpus but gave no explicit directive to vacate the conviction.

Western Region

Lewis V Com.,2006-CA-000996 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

This appeal comes from an order entered March 28, 2006, by the Henderson Circuit Court. This order required Bobby Jack Lewis (Lewis) to reimburse the county for expenses incurred by his incarceration in the county jail as is authorized by KRS 441.265. A prisoner may be exempt from said payment if good cause can be shown. KRS 441.265(1). Lewis, who brings this appeal pro se, presents the following arguments: that this statute is unconstitutional as it constitutes a Bill of Attainder; it is being unconstitutionally applied to him because it forces prisoners who have not been convicted to pay for their incarceration expenses; that it unconstitutionally singles out indigent individuals for harsher treatment; and that the trial judge abused his discretion in ordering Lewis to pay the expenses. After reviewing the arguments set forth by Lewis and the Commonwealth, we affirm the Henderson Circuit Court order.

Louisville Metro

Jones v Com.,2005-CA-002559 --Not Published, Affirming -- PDF

Tommy L. Jones appeals from an opinion and order of the Jefferson Circuit Court which denied his motions for post-conviction relief, a new trial and an evidentiary hearing made pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42, 10.06 and Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02. We affirm.

DPA > Law Library > Slip Opinion Index > Browsable 2007