 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Clemons v. Commonwealth11/5/2004
ey should have received notice twenty days prior to the hearing.
This argument is also without merit due to failure to preserve the issue at the trial level. It is the responsibility of counsel "to present to the trial court those questions of law which may become issues on appeal." If an issue is not properly preserved, this Court may only review the matter for " palpable error which affects the substantial rights of a party . . . ."
After viewing the entire videotape of the August 19, 2003, forfeiture hearing, we conclude that there was no error affecting the rights of the sureties. All interested parties were personally present and represented by counsel at the hearing. No mention whatsoever was made of lack of notice, nor was a continuance requested. Likewise, both sides were given a fair opportunity to present their case. Since failure to preserve the issue did not lead to palpable error, we are without authority to review this issue.
However, even if the notice issue had been preserved and notice had, in fact, been deficient, we agree with the Commonwealth that the sureties did not establish prejudice.
Again, as stated, all parties were present and represented by counsel. Each side was given ample opportunity to present an argument before the court. RCr 9.24 states, " he court... must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties." Because we believe the sureties were in no way prejudiced, we disregard any alleged error or deficiency in the notice.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
Page 1 2 3 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|