 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[W] Kotila v. Commonwealth12/19/2002
OPINION WITHDRAWN per order dated April 24, 2003.
RONALD KOTILA, APPELLANT
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, APPELLEE
APPEAL FROM PULASKI CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE DANIEL J. VENTERS, JUDGE CRIMINAL NO. 99-CR-00068-002
Counsel For, Appellant Richard Hoffman Department of Public Advocacy 100 Fair Oaks Lane, Suite 302 Frankfort, KY 40601
Counsel For, Appellee A.B. Chandler III Attorney General Gregory C. Fuchs Assistant Attorney General Office of Attorney General Criminal Appellate Division 1024 Capital Center Drive Frankfort, KY 40601
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Justice Graves
TO BE PUBLISHED
OPINION
REVERSING AND REMANDING
Appellant, Ronald Kotila, Sr., was convicted in the Pulaski Circuit Court of manufacturing methamphetamine pursuant to KRS 218A.1432. Normally a Class B felony, the manufacturing offense was enhanced by the possession of a handgun, and Appellant was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment. On appeal, Appellant raises various issues concerning admissibility of evidence, jury instructions, trial procedure, and constitutionality of the applicable statute. For the reasons discussed herein, we reverse Appellant's conviction.
On May 14, 1999, an off-duty Somerset police officer, David Nelson, and his wife drove into the Wal-Mart parking lot and pulled into a parking space adjacent to a maroon Buick. Officer Nelson observed Appellant apparently placing something into or removing something from the partially rolled-down window of the Buick, and noticed that Appellant was looking around in different directions as he did so. Suspicious that Appellant was shoplifting, Officer Nelson had his wife contact the Wal-Mart manager and the police, while he walked several car-lengths away, concealed himself behind another vehicle and continued to observe Appellant. Appellant was waiting by the car for Rita Newhouse, a friend who had accompanied Appellant to Wal-Mart and who was still in the store with the car keys.
The car did not belong to Appellant or Ms. Newhouse, but was not stolen. When Ms. Newhouse did not return to the car after several minutes, Appellant walked back into Wal-Mart. Officer Nelson, accompanied now by two other officers, then approached the maroon Buick. Officer Nelson explained to the other officers that Appellant was acting suspiciously and appeared intoxicated. Officer Nelson expressed his concern that Appellant may have shoplifted items from Wal-Mart. Looking into the vehicle, the officers saw several items in a Wal-Mart bag on the front seat. The officers ran the license plates of the Buick and discovered that the plates did not match the vehicle.
The officers then walked toward Wal-Mart with intentions of confronting Appellant, but Appellant was already on his way out of the store and met the officers in the breezeway. One officer informed Appellant that he was suspected of shoplifting and, taking Appellant by the arm, placed Appellant against a machine and frisked him.
Appellant was not armed nor was he carrying any contraband. Appellant gave the officers his name, and explained that he had a receipt for the items in the bag inside the maroon Buick. The officers then escorted him back toward the vehicle. One of the officers later testified that he recognized Appellant's name from a previous discussion with other law enforcement agents concerning methamphetamine production. Either Appellant or an officer reached through the partially-opened window and unlocked the door. Removing the bag from
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|