Bentley v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Bentley v. Commonwealth

392 S.W.2d 67, 1965 Ky. LEXIS 268

Court of Appeals of Kentucky·Decided June 25, 1965·Published

Opinion

MILLIKEN, Judge.

Appellant filed a post conviction motion under RCr 11.42 contending that his con[68] viction for obtaining money under false pretenses and issuing cold checks should be vacated on three grounds: (1) That the court was without jurisdiction, (2) that he did not have effective counsel, and (3) that he was forced to plead guilty.

The record shows that the trial court definitely had jurisdiction and that adequate counsel was appointed for him. The trial court did not grant a hearing on the post conviction motion because it found that there was no material issue of fact that could not be determined from the face of the record.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

MILLIKEN, Judge.

Appellant filed a post conviction motion under RCr 11.42 contending that his con[68] viction for obtaining money under false pretenses and issuing cold checks should be vacated on three grounds: (1) That the court was without jurisdiction, (2) that he did not have effective counsel, and (3) that he was forced to plead guilty.

The record shows that the trial court definitely had jurisdiction and that adequate counsel was appointed for him. The trial court did not grant a hearing on the post conviction motion because it found that there was no material issue of fact that could not be determined from the face of the record.

The judgment is affirmed.

Bentley v. Commonwealth, 392 S.W.2d 67, 1965 Ky. LEXIS 268 (Ky. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

392 S.W.2d 67 (Bentley v. Commonwealth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.