Parrish v. Com.

Decision Date22 October 1971
Citation472 S.W.2d 69
PartiesChester PARRISH and Ewell Cochran, Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

George I. Cline, Morehead, for appellants.

John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., Laura L. Murrell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

OSBORNE, Judge.

The appellants, Chester Parrish and Ewell Cochran, were convicted in the Rowan Circuit Court of armed robbery and sentence entered on May 25, 1970. They were jointly tried. Parrish received a life sentence and Cochran a term of ten years. Subsequent to sentencing they each filed a petition to vacate the judgment under RCr 11.42. The court set the matter for hearing and brought both appellants from the penitentiary and held a hearing.

Appellants contended in their motion that they had inadequate representation by counsel and that the court failed to advise them of their right to an appeal as required by RCr 11.02. The trial court granted a hearing on this motion and entered judgment finding that appellants were adequately represented by competent counsel and that they were not advised of their right to appeal as required by RCr 11.02. The court declined to set aside the judgment as void but granted the appellants a belated appeal. We, therefore, have before us at this time two questions:

1. Were there reversible errors committed during the course of the trial for which that judgment will have to be reversed?

2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in not invalidating the judgment under the allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel?

We will answer the second contention first. Appellants contend the failure of their counsel to properly object to certain instructions and to file a motion and grounds for new trial, coupled with other failures, shows conclusively that they were inadequately represented. We believe their position in this respect is untenable . First and foremost the trial court upon hearing found that they had adequate representation. The testimony before the court upon that hearing consists of the testimony of the attorney who represented them during the course of the trial. Appellants themselves did not testify nor did they introduce any other witnesses. From the testimony before the trial court we cannot say that the trial court erred in overruling their motion in this respect. When we review the original record we do find, however, that counsel did not make specific objections to certain instructions and did not file a motion and grounds for new trial. However, these isolated instances do not in themselves indicate inadequate counsel. They could have been a matter of trial strategy . Since it was possible for both appellants to receive the death penalty, it is conceivable that counsel purposely did not ask for a new trial for, in a new trial, they would have been again subjected to the possibility of a death sentence. We are cognizant of the rule that where a trial is a mockery or a farce it cannot be said that the accused had adequate representation of counsel, but we find no such trial before us here. Wahl v. Commonwealth, Ky., 396 S.W.2d 774, Cert. Den.,384 U.S. 976, 86 S.Ct. 1869, 16 L.Ed.2d 687.

We next deal with appellants' contention that the trial court committed error in the course of the trial for which the judgment should be reversed. They contend that they did not have counsel at arraignment. Without going into the fact of whether counsel was present at arraignment, we have held in Collins v. Commonwealth, Ky., 433 S.W.2d 663 (1968), that absence of counsel at arraignment would not constitute grounds for relief under RCr 11.42. We note the appellants entered a plea of not guilty and, therefore,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Tamme v. Com.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • March 19, 1998
    ...is not reversible error to conduct legal arguments between court and counsel outside the presence of the defendant. Parrish v. Commonwealth, Ky., 472 S.W.2d 69, 71 (1971); Thomas v. Commonwealth, Ky., 437 S.W.2d 512 (1968), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 956, 90 S.Ct. 949, 25 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). Si......
  • Hughes v. State, 122
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • August 12, 1980
    ...stage of the trial at which the accused has a right to be present. See, e. g., State v. Scott, 283 So.2d 250 (La.1973); Parrish v. Commonwealth, 472 S.W.2d 69 (Ky.1971); State v. Holmes, 428 S.W.2d 571 (Mo.1968); People v. Woods, 27 Ill.2d 393, 189 N.E.2d 293 (1963); Hogan v. State, 42 Okl.......
  • Walton v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • February 28, 2020
    ...benefit of counsel." Hutson v. Commonwealth, 215 S.W.3d 708, 713 (Ky. App. 2006) (hereafter Hutson II; quoting Parrish v. Commonwealth, 472 S.W.2d 69, 71 (Ky. 1971)). Hutson II simply restated the 35-year-old holding in Parrish, in which the defendant participated in his arraignment without......
  • Helton v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 2001-CA-001679-MR.
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • July 3, 2003
    ...83 S.Ct. 1050, 10 L.Ed.2d 193 (1963); and Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 82 S.Ct. 157, 7 L.Ed.2d 114 (1961). 19. See Parrish v. Commonwealth, Ky., 472 S.W.2d 69 (1971); Collins v. Commonwealth, Ky., 433 S.W.2d 663 (1968); and Maise v. Commonwealth, Ky., 380 S.W.2d 230 20. Brown v. Common......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT