 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Young v. Commonwealth5/9/2003
l." Conley v. Commonwealth, Ky. App., 569 S.W.2d 682, 684 (1978) (citations omitted). Further, "Kentucky appellate courts have recognized that 'the trial court is in the best position to determine if there was any reluctance, misunderstanding, involuntariness, or incompetence to plead guilty' at the time of the guilty plea . . . ." Bronk v. Commonwealth, Ky., 58 S.W.3d 482, 487 (2001).
Here, the trial court conducted a competency hearing as required by RCr 8.06 and KRS 504.100, and within its discretion, it found appellant was competent to stand trial. In the absence of any additional evidence of incompetence at the time of appellant's guilty plea, there is no basis upon which to find that his plea was entered involuntarily or without his understanding. Conley, 569 S.W.2d at 684. In addition, we note that the trial court took great pains to ensure that appellant understood the guilty plea proceedings despite his illiteracy, by reading documents to him and by speaking in common terms rather than in legal jargon. Given the totality of the circumstances, there is simply no evidence to show that appellant's plea was anything but voluntary. See Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, Ky., 87 S.W.3d 8, 10 (2002) (citing Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 749, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1469, 25 L.Ed.2d 747, 757 (1970)).
Appellant also asserts that he was under extreme emotional distress at the time of the accident, and that the Commonwealth could not have established that he possessed the requisite mental state to be convicted if this case had gone to trial. However, these allegations are not relevant to this appeal since appellant entered a valid guilty plea and waived his right to trial. "Entry of a voluntary, intelligent plea of guilty has long been held by Kentucky Courts to preclude a post-judgment challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence." Taylor v. Commonwealth, Ky. App., 724 S.W.2d 223, 225 (1986) (citation omitted).
Finally, appellant requests appointment of counsel to supplement his appeal and to provide him with assistance. However, making such an appointment is a function of the trial court. Further, RCr 11.42(5) provides that in a situation such as this, a trial court need only appoint counsel if an evidentiary hearing on the issues is required. See Fraser v. Commonwealth, Ky., 59 S.W.3d 448, 453 (2001). As the issues raised in appellant's RCr 11.42 motion have been entirely resolved through a review of the record, an evidentiary hearing was clearly not necessary, and the appointment of counsel was therefore not required.
The order of the Kenton Circuit Court denying appellant's request for RCr 11.42 relief is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
|