Preview:

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION

THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. ." PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVI_L PROCED URE PROMUL GA TED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28 (4) (c), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE CITED OR USED AS A UTHORITYINANY OTHER CASE INANY COURT OF THIS STATE.

RENDERED : DECEMBER 21, 2006 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

,$uyrtmr Courf of
2005-SC-000100-M R RALPH SCOTT ON APPEAL FROM McCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE CRAIG Z . CLYMER, JUDGE NO. 02-CR-00070 APPELLEE _ APPELLANT

V.

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING

On December 25, 2001, the Paducah Police Department issued a dispatch describing a van that was suspected of being used in a criminal incident in McCracken County. Officer James Davis who was on patrol located a van matching the description parked in the lot of a Shell Mart . He observed a woman in the driver's seat and Appellant, Ralph Scott, in the passenger's seat . As Officer Davis approached the van, Appellant put his right hand in his pocket. Appellant failed to comply when Davis requested that he remove his hand from his pocket. Davis drew his weapon and walked toward the passenger. side of the van . As he did so, he observed Appellant withdraw his hand and pitch something over his left shoulder into the back seat. Davis directed Appellant to exit the van, handcuffed him and conducted a pat-down search . He then flashed a light in the vehicle and saw what was ultimately determined to be about twenty grams of crack cocaine in the floorboard behind the driver's seat. Appellant was

arrested and during a search incident to arrest, Officer Davis discovered $1,352 .00 in small bills in Appellant's pants' pockets . Appellant was charged and convicted, upon a jury verdict, of first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance, second offense and of being a persistent felony offender (PFO) in the second degree. He was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment on the trafficking conviction which was enhanced to thirty years by the PFO conviction . On appeal to this Court as a matter of right,' Appellant raises two arguments ; namely, that he was deprived of a fair trial because of prosecutorial misconduct and that his right to a speedy trial was violated . Turning first to the speedy trial issue, which is unpreserved, Appellant requests this Court to review the issue for palpable error pursuant to RCr 10.26. The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and

Download 2005-sc-000100-mr.pdf

Kentucky Law