 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bowling v. Commonwealth3/21/2002
AFFIRMING
Appellant, Ronnie Lee Bowling, was convicted of two counts of murder, two counts of first-degree robbery, and two counts of first-degree burglary. He was sentenced to death on each of the murder counts and twenty years' imprisonment on each of the other counts, which sentences were ordered to be run consecutively for a total of eighty years. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal. Bowlina v. Commonwealth, Ky., 942 S.W.2d 293 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 986, 118 S. Ct. 451, 139 L. Ed. 2d 387 (1997). Subsequently, he filed an RCr 11.42 motion with the trial courtto set aside the judgment against him. After an evidentiary hearing on the motion, the trial court denied the motion. This appeal followed. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
I. ALLEGED BRADY VIOLATION
Bowling first alleges that the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory information to the defense in violation of its duty to do so under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963). This allegation centers on the testimony of Tim Chappell.
Chappell and Bowling were incarcerated in the Laurel County Jail at the same time. Chappell was being held on federal charges that were completely unrelated to the state charges pending against Bowling. According to Chappell's testimony at trial, he and Bowling were friends at the jail, and, in the course of that friendship, Bowling confessed to committing the crimes with which he was charged.
A. Federal Charaes
Chappell was charged with four counts of mail fraud and faced a possible sentence of twenty years in prison in addition to a substantial fine. Three of the four federal charges against Chappell were ultimately dismissed. Chappell pled guilty to the remaining charge and was sentenced to two years in prison. Bowling argues that Chappell struck a deal to trade testimony in Bowling's state trial in exchange for a favorable disposition of Chappell's federal charges. In ruling on Bowling's RCr 11.42 motion on this issue, the trial court concluded that the evidence did not support finding that Chappell in fact had received a benefit for his testimony:
Nothing in the record herein or testimony introduced at this hearing establishes that a benefit in fact was bestowed upon Mr. Chappell in his Federal case. Mr. Chappell's cooperation was brought to the attention of the Federal Trial Judge, but as to what effect it may have had, if any, upon his sentence, is not established.
In support of his argument that the federal court did take Chappell's cooperation into consideration, Bowling points to these comments made by the federal judge in pronouncing Chappelt's sentence: "Now, the Court feels that probation is not quite in order, but the Court will give you what I feel is the minimum sentence under this -under the situation we have here." This statement is hardly conclusive. Moreover, even if the federal sentencing hearing did definitively establish that a deal was struck, there could have been no Brady violation for failing to disclose either the disposition of the federal charges against Chappell or the federal judge's comments made contemporaneously with the imposition of Chappell's sentence.
As a general rule "[tlhere is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case and Brady did not create one. . . .'I Weatherford v. Bursev, 429 U.S. 545, 559, 97 S. Ct. 837, 846, 51 L. Ed. 2d 30, 42 (1977). Rather, Brady concerns those cases in which the government possesses information that the defense does not and the government's failure to disclose the information deprives the defendant of a fair trial. The
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Kentucky Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|