Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant pleaded guilty to several offenses, including manufacturing methamphetamine while in possession of a firearm and being a first-degree persistent felony offender, and received a maximum sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment. Based on his convictions, the Department of Corrections classified Appellant as a violent offender, which required Appellant to serve a greater part of his sentence before reaching parole eligibility. Appellant sued the Department in circuit court to block the violent-offender classification’s application to him, arguing that his convictions were all non-violent drug offenses. The circuit court dismissed Appellant’s suit, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Controlled Substances Act operates to enhance the conviction, not simply the sentence; and (2) the firearm-enhancement provision of the Act served to elevate Appellant’s conviction for manufacturing methaphetamine from a Class B to a Class A felony conviction, which qualified Appellant for classification as a violent offender. View "Mills v. Dep't of Corr. Offender Info. Servs." on Justia Law

After a jury convicted Appellant of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to various other charges. On appeal, Appellant challenged the trial court’s exclusion of prior-bad-acts evidence and hearsay testimony. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the trial court erred by excluding the evidence but that Appellant did not properly preserve the issue for appellate review. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction and sentence, holding (1) counsel’s offer of proof about the excluded testimony was insufficient to preserve appellate review; and (2) regardless of any preservation misstep, the trial court’s exclusion of the testimony was harmless. View "Henderson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to charges of murder, abuse of a corpse, and tampering with physical evidence in connection with the shooting death of her husband, as well as several counts of forgery. Appellant was sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Appellant argued that the trial court committed two errors in its decisions regarding her sentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in concluding that Appellant was not entitled to the victim-of-domestic-violence exception to the parole eligibility requirement for violent offenders established by Ky. Rev. Stat. 439.3401; and (2) if the trial court erred in failing to consider probation as a sentencing alternative, the error was harmless. View "Gaines v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of burglary in the first degree, assault in the fourth degree, and for being a persistent felony offender in the first degree. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err by refusing to dismiss the entire jury venire after certain statements by a prospective juror instead of issuing an admonition; (2) erred in allowing the narration of security footage by witnesses, but the error was harmless; (3) improperly allowed speculative testimony regarding Defendant, but the error was harmless; and (4) did not err in finding Defendant to be a persistent felony offender in the first degree. View "Boyd v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree sodomy, intimidating a participant in the legal process, second-degree wanton endangerment, third-degree terroristic threatening, and being a persistent felony offender in the first degree. Appellant was sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not commit reversible error admitting testimony of a sexual assault nurse examiner; and (2) the trial court did not err by failing to grant Appellant’s motion for a directed verdict on the charge of intimidating a witness in the legal process. View "Edmonds v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

In 2008, Appellant stabbed and killed Cory Kessnick. Appellant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that he was entitled to immunity under Ky. Rev. Stat. 503.085, which provides immunity from criminal prosecution to persons who use force in self defense or defense of others. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the use of force employed by Appellant was unlawful. Appellant subsequently entered an Alford plea to charges of second-degree murder and assault under extreme emotional distress but appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss. The court of appeals reversed after undertaking a de novo review of the evidence on record. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that (1) court of appeals applied the incorrect standard of review in reversing the denial of Appellant’s motion to dismiss; and (2) under the correct standard of review, there was a substantial basis for the trial court’s rulings. View "Commonwealth v. Lemons" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellee was found guilty of second-degree arson, second-degree burglary, and of being a first-degree persistent felony offender. The trial court erred in its peremptory strike allocation during voir dire, but Appellee’s counsel failed to preserve the issue for appeal. Appellee subsequently filed a motion pursuant to RCr 11.42 to vacate his sentence due to ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that he would have used the two additional peremptory strikes denied to him by the trial court in striking two jurors. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Appellee’s allegations were not credible. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in relying on Shane v. Commonwealth in reversing the decision of the trial court; and (2) Appellee failed to demonstrate how he was prejudiced by not being able to strike the two jurors. View "Commonwealth v. Lawson" on Justia Law

Appellee was indicted and convicted of two counts of identity theft. Appellee’s convictions arose from allegations that Appellee opened credit card accounts and obtained checks using her ex-husband’s name and that she filed a tax return and obtained a tax refund in her daughter’s name. The court of appeals reversed both convictions, concluding that the trial court erred in denying Appellee’s motion for a directed verdict because there was insufficient evidence to prove each element of Appellee’s convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) there was insufficient evidence to convict Appellee of the conviction of identity theft relating to her ex-husband; but (2) there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict of guilt for the conviction relating to Appellee’s daughter. View "Commonwealth v. Goss" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of the use of a weapon of mass destruction in the second degree for and attempted murder for installing a pipe bomb in a car. Appellant was sentenced to forty years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s conviction did not violate double jeopardy principles; (2) the trial court did not err in finding that serious physical injury occurred to the victim and in sentencing Appellant as a violent offender; (3) the trial court’s refusal to allow the jurors to use their notes during deliberations was not reversible error; and (4) Appellant was not wrongly denied his motion for directed verdict. View "Biederman v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine while in possession of a firearm, of being a convicted felon in possession of a hand gun, and possession of marijuana. The trial court sentenced Appellant as a persistent felony offender to thirty-four years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err by not instructing the jury on unlawful possession of a methamphetamine precursor as a lesser-included offense of manufacturing methamphetamine; and (2) did not err in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, Appellant’s motion to suppress items seized from his home, as the search was done pursuant to a valid search warrant. View "Rawls v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law