Preview:

NOT TO BE PUBLISHER OPINION

IMPOR `ANT NOTICE

THIS OPINION IS DESIGNA TED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. " PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCED URE PR OMUL GA TED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28 (4) (c), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE CITED OR USED AS A UTHORITYIN ANY OTHER CASE INANY CO UR T OF THIS STA TE.

REN i~l

l~0 $F~ FLU

E

,~~uyrtmt QZurt at
BENJAMIN DAVID WILSON

2003-SC-00601-MR

n
APPELLANT

V

APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE THOMAS O. CASTLEN, JUDGE 03-CR-0042 APPELLEE

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING I . INTRODUCTION

Appellant, Benjamin David Wilson, was convicted of four counts of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, found to be a Second-Degree Persistent Felony Offender, and sentenced to twenty years in prison . His sole claim of error on appeal is that the trial court improperly denied his motion for directed verdict . Because there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's guilty verdict, the verdict was not "clearly unreasonable," and we affirm the judgment. II . BACKGROUND On December 7, 2002, Mary Hayden was shopping with her husband, Raymond, at Wal-Mart . While shopping, someone stole her purse, which contained a checkbook, credit card and cash . Between December 7 and December 10, four checks were written on the Hayden checking account. Two of the checks were written to local businesses . The last two checks were made out to Appellant's father, David Wilson .

Prior to trial, the police interviewed Appellant and his father. Initially, Appellant's and Wilson's stories were consistent. They claimed that Appellant's girlfriend, Brenda Messnick, had written the checks to Wilson to repay a debt. During a second interview, however, Wilson recanted his previous account and told the police that it was his son, Appellant, and not Brenda Messnick, who gave him the dubious checks . During trial, Appellant admitted his wrongful possession of two of the checks written to local businesses but denied any knowledge of the checks made out to his father. Wilson testified for the prosecution in accord with his second statement, which contradicted his son's account. The prosecution's evidence also revealed that the police discovered the stolen checkbook in the Appellant's possession during a search of his residence . At the end of the trial Appellant moved for directed verdict, which the trial court denied . The jury convicted Appellant on all four counts of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument and found that he was a Second-Degree Persistent Felony Offender. The trial court sentenced Appellant to twenty years . Appellant now appeals to this court as a matter of right.' III . ANALYSIS Appellant's sole claim of error is that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a directed verdict as to the two checks written to his father. He claims that the only evidence of his knowledge of these checks was the testimony of his father and that his father's testimony lacked credibility. Thus, he argues that he was entitled to a directed verdict because the prosecution failed to prove his involvement in the writing of those two checks . 1 KY. CONST .

Download 2003-sc-000601-mr.pdf

Kentucky Law