Roark v. Com.
| Decision Date | 10 June 1966 |
| Citation | 404 S.W.2d 22 |
| Parties | James Edward ROARK, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
James Edward Roark, pro se.
Robert Matthews, Atty. Gen., Joseph Eckart, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.
CLAY, Commissioner.
In this proceeding under RCr 11.42 appellant's motion was overruled without a hearing. The grounds of the motion were (1) appellant was denied a preliminary hearing, and (2) he has newly discovered evidence relating to the issue of guilt. On the first ground there is no intimation of prejudice; on the second ground there is no suggestion of the nature of the newly discovered evidence.
Appellant contends he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing because the Commonwealth filed no response to the motion, Since the motion on its face did not present a ground on which relief could be granted, no response was necessary.
The lack of a preliminary hearing did not deprive appellant of any constitutional rights. See Carson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 382 S.W.2d 85; Yates v. Commonwealth, Ky., 386 S.W.2d 450; Walker v. Commonwealth, Ky., 386 S.W.2d 452; Warner v. Commonwealth, Ky., 386 S.W.2d 455; Commonwealth v. Watkins, Ky., 398 S.W.2d 698.
Newly discovered evidence relating to the issue of guilt has not been recognized as a ground for granting relief under RCr 11.42. Johnson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 391 S.W.2d 365; Fannin v. Commonwealth, Ky., 394 S.W.2d 897; Bell v. Commonwealth, Ky., 395 S.W.2d 784. The Supreme Court case of Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed. 770, does not require a change of view. Nor does the motion present facts which would justify the granting of coram nobis relief. See Wallace v. Commonwealth, Ky., 327 S.W.2d 17.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Com.
...that any prejudice to appellant's rights at his jury trial resulted from the failure to accord him an examining trial. Roark v. Commonwealth, Ky., 404 S.W.2d 22 (Decided June 10, The judgment is affirmed. PALMORE, Chief Justice (dissenting). After dwelling so much on what happened in the lo......
-
Malone v. Commonwealth
...893 (Ky. 1965). When an RCr 11.42 motion fails to present a ground for relief on its face, no response is necessary. Roark v. Commonwealth, 404 S.W.2d 22, 23 (Ky. 1966). Next, the Commonwealth correctly points out that the timing provision of RCr 11.42(4) is triggered by the clerk's notice ......
-
Willoughby v. Com.
...386 S.W.2d 734. 'Newly discovered evidence' as it may pertain to the issue of guilt is not a basis for relief under RCr 11.42. Roark v. Com., Ky., 404 S.W.2d 22. The judgment is ...
-
Banton v. Com.
...of a showing of prejudice this is not a ground for relief under RCr 11.42. See Commonwealth v. Watkins, Ky.,398 S.W.2d 698; Roark v. Commonwealth, Ky., 404 S.W.2d 22 (decided June 10, 1966). Banton's only claim of prejudice is that if he had been given a hearing his attorney (apparently one......