Preview:

IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION
THIS OPINION I S DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76 .28(4)(C), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER, UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS, RENDERED AFTER JANUARY I, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE ACTION.

,;vuyrnat Courf of '~:enfurkt
2009-SC-000400-MR ROBERT LACY STAMPER ON APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE THOMAS O. CASTLEN, JUDGE NO . 08-CR-00397 COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING

RENDERED : JANUARY 20, 2011 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPELLANT

APPELLEE

The Appellant Robert Stamper was convicted of first-degree robbery and of being a first-degree persistent felony offender. . Though he did not object at trial, he now complains that the trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to ask him to characterize the testimony of witnesses against him as false and in allowing evidence of his prior drug use to be admitted. Because neither alleged error rises to the level of palpable error, Appellant's conviction is affirmed. I. Background Appellant was convicted of robbing Walter White . Appellant and White met through their next door neighbor, Larry Bickett . Appellant and White had known each other for a couple weeks before the crime . On the night of the crime, four people were in White's apartment : Clarence Arthur Hill, Jr,., Valada

Crowley Layson, Appellant, and White. What occurred inside the apartment was disputed at trial. According to White, Appellant and Layson came to his apartment, where they began playing pool . White testified that Appellant and Layson acted suspiciously: they whispered to each other, tried to close the blinds, and tried to convince White to go to a bar with them to get drunk. Hill arrived later in the evening; Appellant went to the door and let him in . White became concerned that there were so many people in his apartment whom he did not know well. He asked them to leave and went to his bedroom . White claimed that Layson followed him and tried to convince him to go to a bar. Appellant then came into the bedroom and attacked White by hitting him in the head with a pool cue . A struggle ensued. Hill joined the struggle, wrestling White to the floor. According to White, Appellant then pulled out a knife and held it to White's throat, and then asked for White's wallet . Without waiting, Appellant stuck his hand in White's pocket and took out the wallet. Appellant then instructed Hill to get some cords in order to tie up White . Hill returned with cord that had been pulled out of the wall and proceeded to tie White's hands and feet behind his back. Appellant directed Layson to find and take White's cell phones. Appellant also asked for the keys to White's truck and threatened to kill him. Some time later, White heard the police knocking at the door. When they asked that he come to the door, Hill cut the cords binding his wrists and

ankles . White answered the door, told the police that three people were inside his apartment, and then fled to his neighbor's apartment. Appellant denied that a robbery occurred and admitted only to taking money from White's wallet. He claimed that while White and Layson were playing pool, he sneaked into White's bedroom and took money out of his wallet, having observed White hide the wallet under the mattress earlier in the evening. According to Appellant, when he returned to the living room, White and Layson went into the bedroom. Appellant then went outside on the balcony, where he saw Hill show up at the apartment. Appellant presumed that Hill, who was Layson's boyfriend, had overheard that Appellant and Layson were going to rendezvous at White's house. Appellant claimed that Hill suspected Layson was about to cheat on him . Appellant testified that he entered the apartment to warn Layson about Hill's arrival, and that Hill followed him. When Hill saw Layson and White sitting on the bed, he attacked White. Appellant intervened to break up the fight, and Layson, Hill, and Appellant prepared to leave. At that point, White discovered his wallet was missing and grabbed Layson. Appellant and Hill intervened on Layson's behalf and another struggle ensued. Appellant claims he did not hit White with a pool cue, hold a knife to his throat, or tie him up . He also claims no one else tied White up . Neither party disputes that Bickett, the next-door neighbor, called the police after hearing the commotion next door and seeing his coaxial cable,

through which he illegally shared cable television service with White, pulled so violently through the wall that his television almost tipped over. The police arrived shortly after the call and entered the apartment. White met them at the door and said that the three people in his apartment were robbing him . They found Hill lying on the bed, and Layson and Appellant in the bathroom . Appellant tried to escape; he struggled with and knocked down one of the officers . In the bedroom, police found some cut cables and cords and a pool cue. Police also discovered cuts on White's arms and marks on his wrists and ankles. Two knives were also found on Appellant. Two other knives were found in White's bedroom. A police officer also testified that in an interview right after the incident, Appellant admitted to trying to rob White. Specifically, he admitted that he held a knife on White, that White had been tied up, and that he was there to get money from White. The jury convicted Appellant of first-degree robbery and of being a firstdegree persistent felony offender . The court sentenced Appellant to twenty years in prison . His appeal to this Court, therefore, is as a matter of right. Ky. Const.

Download 2009-sc-000400-mr.pdf

Kentucky Law