Yates v. Com.
| Decision Date | 29 January 1965 |
| Citation | 386 S.W.2d 450 |
| Parties | Stanford YATES, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Stanford Yates, pro se.
Robert Matthews, Atty. Gen., Charles Runyan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.
DAVIS, Commissioner.
Stanford Yates prosecutes this appeal from an order of the McCracken Circuit Court which overruled his RCr 11.42 motion to vacate his prior conviction in that court for armed robbery. The challenged order was entered after a hearing, at which appellant appeared in person and with counsel appointed for him by the trial court. The trial court furnished appellant a transcript of the proceedings at the RCr 11.42 hearing, which transcript is before us on this appeal.
In his motion to vacate appellant recited nine separate grounds upon which he bases his entitlement to have the judgment of conviction vacated; he stated in his pro se brief that he yet insists upon all of the points, although he pitches his main assault and argument on the contentions that (1) he was denied counsel prior to arraignment, (2) that he had no counsel at his examining trial, and (3) that the counsel he had at the final trial was inadequate and ineffective.
The record reflects that appellant was arrested on November 27, 1962, and placed in the city jail. Appellant testified at the RCr 11.42 hearing that he was denied the right to get in touch with a lawyer, although he did not relate any details about the alleged refusal. There was proof for the Commonwealth to the effect that no such refusal had occurred. The trial judge found that the alleged incident did not occur; this finding is amply supported by the record. Moreover, it is significant that appellant did not give any statement while in custody, and nothing that he said to any officer while in custody was offered as evidence against him.
On November 29, 1962, appellant was brought before the police court judge for examining trial; the examining trial was held on the next day. Appellant did not have any attorney at the examining trial. The police judge candidly stated that he had no independent recollection whether he advised appellant of his right to counsel, although he expressed the belief that he had done so, and that the prosecuting attorney had too, as the regular practice in all such cases is to so advise the defendants. Nothing that occurred at the examining trial appears in the record before us, nor is there any contention that anything that transpired at the examination was used against the appellant upon the felony trial in circuit court. We are mindful of the decisions of the Supreme Court,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Konvalin v. Sigler
...People v. Daniels, 49 Ill.App.2d 48, 199 N.E.2d 33 (1964); State v. Richardson, 194 Kan. 471, 399 P.2d 799 (1965); Yates v. Commonwealth, 386 S.W.2d 450 (Ky. 1965); Johnson v. State, 238 Md. 140, 207 A.2d 643 (1965); State v. Owens, 391 S.W.2d 248 (Mo. 1965); Victoria v. Young, 80 Nev. 279,......
-
Roark v. Com.
...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......
-
Graves v. Commonwealth, No. 2011–SC–000467–MR.
...404(b) cited by the trial court as abandoned. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trude, 151 S.W.3d 803, 815 (Ky.2004); see also Yates v. Commonwealth, 386 S.W.2d 450, 452 (Ky.1965) (“Appellant's other asserted grounds for relief may properly be considered as abandoned inasmuch as he does not press the......
-
Yates v. Wingo, 19647.
...have been the subject of a direct appeal. The Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court. Yates v. Commonwealth, 386 S.W.2d 450 (Ky.), cert denied, 380 U.S. 988, 85 S.Ct. 1361, 14 L.Ed.2d 280 Petitioner then filed a second motion in the Circuit Court to vacate s......