Barnes v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Barnes v. Commonwealth

397 S.W.2d 44, 1965 Ky. LEXIS 54

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky

DecidedDecember 10, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 397 S.W.2d 44 (Barnes v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barnes v. Commonwealth, 397 S.W.2d 44, 1965 Ky. LEXIS 54 (Ky. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

CLAY, Commissioner.

This is an appeal from an order overruling, without a hearing, appellant’s motion to vacate a judgment under RCr 11.42.

Appellant was convicted on several counts of armed robbery and sentenced to serve seven years on each count after a plea of guilty. The gist of his motion to vacate the judgment is that at the time the alleged crimes were committed and at the time of trial, appellant was insane and the attorney representing him knew the facts upon which such a claim and a defense could have been interposed. Documentary evidence which would tend to support this claim was filed with the motion. The charge is made that appellant was not adequately represented by counsel because he was unable to cooperate with counsel and his mental condition was not brought to the attention of the trial court.

We think petitioner’s allegations go beyond that of asserting his lawyer failed to represent him in the best possible manner. If actually insane at the time of his trial, he cannot be held responsible for his plea of guilty or for his counsel’s mistakes (if any). See Commonwealth v. Strickland, Ky., 375 S.W.2d 701.

Under the unusual circumstances set forth in appellant’s petition, we are convinced that he was entitled to a hear[45]*45ing under RCr 11.42. This of course does not reflect any opinion as to the merits of his claim.

The order overruling appellant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction is reversed with directions to the trial court to grant appellant a hearing and otherwise proceed as provided in RCr 11.42.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CLAY, Commissioner.

This is an appeal from an order overruling, without a hearing, appellant’s motion to vacate a judgment under RCr 11.42.

Appellant was convicted on several counts of armed robbery and sentenced to serve seven years on each count after a plea of guilty. The gist of his motion to vacate the judgment is that at the time the alleged crimes were committed and at the time of trial, appellant was insane and the attorney representing him knew the facts upon which such a claim and a defense could have been interposed. Documentary evidence which would tend to support this claim was filed with the motion. The charge is made that appellant was not adequately represented by counsel because he was unable to cooperate with counsel and his mental condition was not brought to the attention of the trial court.

We think petitioner’s allegations go beyond that of asserting his lawyer failed to represent him in the best possible manner. If actually insane at the time of his trial, he cannot be held responsible for his plea of guilty or for his counsel’s mistakes (if any). See Commonwealth v. Strickland, Ky., 375 S.W.2d 701.

Under the unusual circumstances set forth in appellant’s petition, we are convinced that he was entitled to a hear[45]*45ing under RCr 11.42. This of course does not reflect any opinion as to the merits of his claim.

The order overruling appellant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction is reversed with directions to the trial court to grant appellant a hearing and otherwise proceed as provided in RCr 11.42.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

397 S.W.2d 44, 1965 Ky. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnes-v-commonwealth-kyctapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack