Parrish v. Com.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky) |
| Writing for the Court | OSBORNE; All concur, except STEINFELD |
| Citation | 472 S.W.2d 69 |
| Decision Date | 22 October 1971 |
| Parties | Chester PARRISH and Ewell Cochran, Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
Page 69
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.
Page 70
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tamme v. Com., No. 94-SC-637-MR
...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). Since the jury was p......
-
Hughes v. State, No. 122
...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. 188, 275......
-
Walton v. Commonwealth, NO. 2018-CA-000380-MR
...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 co......
-
Hutson v. Com., No. 2005-CA-002289-MR.
...stage of the trial unless, of course, the accused enters a plea of guilty without benefit of counsel." Parrish v. Commonwealth, 472 S.W.2d 69, 71 (Ky.1971). Hutson did not plead guilty. While Hutson I stands for the principle that a conviction cannot be sustained in the total absence o......
-
Tamme v. Com., No. 94-SC-637-MR
...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). Since the jury was p......
-
Hughes v. State, No. 122
...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. 188, 275......
-
Walton v. Commonwealth, NO. 2018-CA-000380-MR
...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......
-
Hutson v. Com., No. 2005-CA-002289-MR.
...critical stage of the trial unless, of course, the accused enters a plea of guilty without benefit of counsel." Parrish v. Commonwealth, 472 S.W.2d 69, 71 (Ky.1971). Hutson did not plead guilty. While Hutson I stands for the principle that a conviction cannot be sustained in the total absen......