Clay v. Com.
| Decision Date | 24 October 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-SC-381-MR,89-SC-381-MR |
| Citation | 818 S.W.2d 264 |
| Parties | William Henry CLAY, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Kentucky |
Appellant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine, subsequent offense, and for being a persistent felony offender in the first degree. He was sentenced to an enhanced term of 25 years in prison. He appeals as a matter of right.
Appellant was on parole and was subject to intensive supervision. As such, he was required to meet with his parole officer twice per month, plus one home visit by the parole officer each month.
Appellant failed to meet with his parole officer in December, 1987. In January, 1988, his parole officer, Richardson, went to appellant's residence to discuss the failure to report. Fellow parole officer McCowen accompanied Richardson. Appellant was found lying on the bed in the one-bedroom apartment and, after the discussion became heated, appellant was placed under arrest for failure to report. Parole officer McCowen observed bullets on the dresser in the bedroom.
Appellant was placed under arrest and taken to jail. At this time, parole officer McCowen informed Richardson that he had observed bullets on the dresser in appellant's bedroom. As part of the Conditions of Supervision, appellant was not permitted to purchase, own or have in his possession a firearm or other weapon.
The parole officers decided to return to the apartment due to their belief that appellant possessed a firearm. They were allowed into the residence by appellant's girlfriend, who had also been present at the time appellant was arrested. In searching the apartment, they did not find firearms. However, they did find much ammunition, and also found an open shoe box which contained a bag of white powder and some $11,097 in currency. At this time, the officers called police.
A policeman arrived and determined that the white powder was cocaine. He then left for purposes of obtaining a search warrant. Thereafter, pursuant to the warrant, the cocaine, money and a large quantity of firearm shells were seized.
Appellant argues that the initial warrantless intrusion by the parole officers violates his federal and state constitutional rights. Appellant argues many related issues not relied upon by the Commonwealth at any time. Appellant fails to overcome, however, the simple fact that, as part of his conditions of parole, he had signed an agreement wherein he consented to a search of his person or property any time probable cause existed for the parole officer to believe that appellant possessed contraband.
Here, the trial court held a suppression hearing and, upon its conclusion, determined that the parole officer had probable cause to believe that appellant possessed contraband in his apartment. The findings of the trial court supporting its conclusion of probable cause were based on substantial evidence, and we are not free to second-guess the trial court as to the facts. RCr 9.78; Diehl v. Commonwealth, Ky., 673 S.W.2d 711 (1984). Likewise, we agree with the conclusion of the trial court that probable cause existed under these facts to warrant the parole officers' search. Therefore, by the terms of the conditions of Supervision for parole and by appellant's status as a parolee on intensive supervision, the search was permissible.
Appellant's second argument is based on his motion for a bifurcated trial, as provided for in KRS Chapter 532, so that no mention of his previous drug-related offense would be made until the sentencing portion of the trial. Based upon Smith v. Commonwealth, Ky., 707 S.W.2d 342 (1986), his motion was overruled by the trial court....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayes v. Com.
...purposes should always be reserved to the penalty phase of a trial. Commonwealth v. Ramsey, 920 S.W.2d 526 (Ky.1996); Clay v. Commonwealth, 818 S.W.2d 264, 265-66 (Ky.1991). The trial court overruled the objection because "the cat was already out of the bag" and allowed the Commonwealth to ......
-
Hatfield v. Daugherty
...is constitutionally mandated here because Kentucky now affords such procedures to defendants in all drug cases. See Clay v. Commonwealth, 818 S.W.2d 264 (Ky.1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1304 (1992). Because we conclude that petitioner has procedurally defaulted on his equal protection cla......
-
Riley v. Com.
...suspicion warranted opening the drawer of the end table next to the chair on which Appellant was then sitting. Cf. Clay v. Commonwealth, Ky., 818 S.W.2d 264, 265 (1991) (parole officer's observation of bullets laying in plain view on a dresser next to the bed on which defendant was lying su......
-
Riley v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
...That suspicion warranted opening the drawer of the end table next to the chair on which Appellant was then sitting. Cf. Clay v. Commonwealth, Ky., 818 S.W.2d 264, 265 (parole officer's observation of bullets laying in plain view on a dresser next to the bed on which defendant was lying suff......