Stinnett v. Com.
| Decision Date | 27 March 1970 |
| Parties | Ronnie STINNETT, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Richard D. Gilliam, Jr., Gilliam & Moore, Owensboro, William A. Fenwick, Cleary, Gottlieb, Stein & Hamilton, New York City, William L. Wilson, Jr., Owensboro, for movant.
Dan M Griffith, pro se.
William M. Gant, Commonwealth's Atty., Sixth Judicial District, Owensboro, for respondent Mrs. Dorothy Hild.
CULLEN, Commissioner.
Ronnie Stinnett has appealed from an order overruling, after a hearing, his motion under RCr 11.42 for relief from three 1968 judgments of conviction of felonies under which he is serving sentences totaling 18 years' confinement. In connection with that appeal he has made several motions which we hereby are ruling on.
The first motion is that Stinnett be permitted to prosecute his appeal in forma pauperis. The trial court treated Stinnett as being in the pauper class by appointing counsel to represent him at the RCr 11.42 hearing, and appointing additional counsel to represent him on this appeal. But the court overruled a motion that Stinnett be permitted to prosecute the appeal in forma pauperis, and overruled a motion that Stinnett be furnished at public expense a transcript of the evidence taken at the RCr 11.42 hearing. It appears that the court was of the opinion that money was available for Stinnett from an out-of-state, privately supported indigent criminal fund, with which to pay for the transcript. There is nothing in the record to support the asserted fact, and there are undisputed affidavits to refute it. And even if it were shown by the record, the fact that some charitable donors might choose to come to Stinnett's aid would not take him out of the status of a pauper, in which status he belongs, because he has no property or funds of his own or which he can command. Therefore, we are sustaining the motion that Stinnett be permitted to prosecute this appeal in forma pauperis, and we so order.
The second, fourth and fifth motions seek appropriate orders that Stinnett be furnished with a transcript of the evidence on the hearing of his RCr 11.42 motion. Since it appears that Stinnett is a pauper we are sustaining these motions to the extent only that we herrby order the respondent circuit judge to make such orders as may be necessary or appropriate to provide to Stinnett, at the expense of the county, a transcript only of such portion of the evidence on the hearing of the RCr 11.42 motion as relates to the issues on which this court held, in Stinnett v. Commonwealth, Ky., 446 S.W.2d 292, he was entitled to a hearing. Those issues were (1) whether counsel appointed by Stinnett for his trial refused to consult with him before trial and refused to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tolson v. Lane
...or organizations who might have a legal duty, and who are willing and able, to supply the costs of the action. Cf. Stinnett v. Commonwealth, Ky., 452 S.W.2d 613 (1970). This approach accords with what appears to be the far greater weight of authority on the question, See, e. g., State ex re......
-
Stinnett v. Com.
...deadly weapon. On remand a hearing was held and judgment entered overruling his RCr 11.42 motion to vacate. On appeal (Stinnett v. Commonwealth, Ky., 452 S.W.2d 613) this court remanded with directions to furnish records on appeal and other matters shown in the This appeal is now before us ......