RENDERED: MAY 29, 2026; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2025-CA-0966-MR
LESTER COOK, JR. APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM WHITLEY CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE PAUL K. WINCHESTER, JUDGE ACTION NO. 01-CR-00148
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
OPINION VACATING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CETRULO, MCNEILL, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.
CETRULO, JUDGE: Appellant Lester Cook, Jr., (“Cook”) appeals the one-
sentence Whitley Circuit Court order denying his motion to vacate his conviction
under RCr1 11.42 and/or order a new trial under RCr 10.02 and CR2 60.02.
1 Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure. 2 Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure. “[U]nless otherwise provided by law, rules of procedure applying to civil cases apply as well to criminal cases.” Commonwealth v. Cambron, 546 S.W.3d 556, 561 (Ky. App. 2018) (citation omitted). Finding the circuit court order insufficient, we vacate and remand for further
proceedings.
BACKGROUND
In August 2001, Cook drove his car while intoxicated and killed a
woman when he lost control of his vehicle. During his trial, evidence was
inconsistent as to the amount of alcohol he drank that fateful day. The accident
reconstructionist estimated Cook lost control of his car while traveling
approximately six to seven miles per hour under the speed limit, but other
testimony suggested he was traveling much faster. After the accident, the arresting
officer, Deputy Christopher Stack (“Deputy Stack”) informed Cook he could not
contact an attorney unless he gave a blood sample. Cook was not permitted to
contact an attorney, and Deputy Stack eventually attained a blood sample through a
search warrant. At trial, Deputy Stack reaffirmed his statement and “his
understanding” of the law regarding implied consent. Ultimately, the jury found
Cook guilty of wanton murder and recommended a life sentence. The Whitley
Circuit Court accepted the jury’s recommendation.
On direct appeal, Cook raised seven arguments, including challenges
to Deputy Stack’s testimony and the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
conviction of wanton murder. In a March 2004 opinion, our Supreme Court
affirmed Cook’s conviction but remanded for a new sentence. Cook v.
-2- Commonwealth, 129 S.W.3d 351, 355 (Ky. 2004). The Court determined that
Deputy Stack’s recitation of the law was erroneous but harmless under the
circumstances. Id. at 358-59. The Court also concluded that there was sufficient
evidence for the trier of fact to find that Cook’s actions met the elements for
wanton murder, i.e., that he acted wantonly under the circumstances manifesting
extreme indifference to human life. Id. at 362-63. However, our Supreme Court
determined that the Whitley Circuit Court impermissibly allowed the
Commonwealth to introduce evidence of a previously dismissed vehicular
homicide charge during the penalty phase of trial. Id. at 364-65. Thus, Cook’s
sentence was vacated and the matter remanded for a new penalty phase. Id.
On remand, a new sentencing jury recommended a penalty of 50 years
of imprisonment. The Whitley Circuit Court accepted this recommendation and
entered a final judgment and sentence in September 2004. Cook again appealed,
but our Supreme Court affirmed the sentence. Cook v. Commonwealth, No. 2004-
SC-0853-MR, 2005 WL 1412485, at *2 (Ky. Jun. 16, 2005).
In September 2012, our Supreme Court adopted the Kentucky Bar
Association’s recommendation of permanent disbarment for Cook’s defense
counsel, Ronnie Wayne Reynolds (“Reynolds”), after he pleaded guilty in federal
court to a charge of extortion under color of official right. Kentucky Bar Ass’n v.
Reynolds, 378 S.W.3d 310, 311 (Ky. 2012). The extortion scheme involved a
-3- conspiracy between Reynolds and the then Whitley County Sheriff wherein the
Sheriff procured clients for Reynolds to represent in state court. Id. Reynolds then
charged the clients exorbitant legal fees and paid illegal kickbacks to the sheriff in
exchange for his “referral services” and to ensure reduced charges. Id. The extent
and duration of this illegal arrangement is unclear, but Reynolds admitted in his
plea deal to three instances of kickbacks between June 2004 and July 2007. Id. To
be clear, Reynolds represented Cook at his original 2002 trial, his first appeal in
2003-04, his resentencing in September 2004, and his second appeal in 2005.
Reynolds received a 27-month sentence in federal prison, and the sheriff received a
186-month sentence.3
In January 2023, Cook moved to vacate his convictions pursuant to
RCr 11.42 and/or order a new trial pursuant to RCr 10.02(1) and CR 60.02.
Cook’s motion, drafted by new legal counsel, was 25 pages of well-articulated,
well-reasoned arguments. Cook cited more than 30 published cases, properly
represented the applicable court rules and his burden, and presented a coherent,
3 Beyond the extortion, the sheriff was convicted of conspiracy to distribute oxycodone and conspiracy to commit money laundering, and the county bookkeeper pleaded guilty to charges related to money laundering, extortion, and drug distribution due to her participation in the conspiracy from 2003 to 2008. U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Kentucky, FBI ARCHIVES, (1) https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/louisville/press-releases/2011/former-whitley- county-sheriff-sentenced-186-months-for-extortion-money-laundering-and-drug-trafficking- offenses, and (2) https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/louisville/press-releases/2011/bookkeeper-for- former-whitley-county-sheriff-pleads-guilty-to-money-laundering-conspiracy (both last visited May 1, 2026).
-4- legally supported argument. In short, Cook argued that the newly discovered
evidence of corruption demonstrated that the prosecution engaged in misconduct
and that his defense attorney was burdened by a conflict of interest. He asserted
the evidence of criminal conduct between his attorney and the Whitley County
Sheriff supported the claim that the Commonwealth engaged in misconduct by
offering and relying upon false evidence to secure a conviction of wanton murder
in violation of Cook’s Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and a fair trial.
He asserted that the jury and our Supreme Court would not have found various
errors and omissions harmless if the corruption had been known at that time. Cook
argued his motion was timely, and fell within the exceptions to strict timing
requirements, because in prison he was not aware of the criminal conspiracy
involving his defense counsel and the county sheriff.
For two years, the Commonwealth did not respond to Cook’s motion,
nor did the circuit court act. It is unclear why the Commonwealth and the Whitley
Circuit Court viewed their duties as optional.
In May 2025, now more than two years later, Cook moved for a ruling
on his prior motion. In June 2025, the Commonwealth responded to Cook’s
motion but merely submitted a few paragraphs expressing disdain. The
Commonwealth stated that it took personal offense to Cook’s “laughable” motion
but cited no caselaw and made no reference to Cook’s specific arguments. In fact,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
RENDERED: MAY 29, 2026; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2025-CA-0966-MR
LESTER COOK, JR. APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM WHITLEY CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE PAUL K. WINCHESTER, JUDGE ACTION NO. 01-CR-00148
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
OPINION VACATING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CETRULO, MCNEILL, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.
CETRULO, JUDGE: Appellant Lester Cook, Jr., (“Cook”) appeals the one-
sentence Whitley Circuit Court order denying his motion to vacate his conviction
under RCr1 11.42 and/or order a new trial under RCr 10.02 and CR2 60.02.
1 Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure. 2 Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure. “[U]nless otherwise provided by law, rules of procedure applying to civil cases apply as well to criminal cases.” Commonwealth v. Cambron, 546 S.W.3d 556, 561 (Ky. App. 2018) (citation omitted). Finding the circuit court order insufficient, we vacate and remand for further
proceedings.
BACKGROUND
In August 2001, Cook drove his car while intoxicated and killed a
woman when he lost control of his vehicle. During his trial, evidence was
inconsistent as to the amount of alcohol he drank that fateful day. The accident
reconstructionist estimated Cook lost control of his car while traveling
approximately six to seven miles per hour under the speed limit, but other
testimony suggested he was traveling much faster. After the accident, the arresting
officer, Deputy Christopher Stack (“Deputy Stack”) informed Cook he could not
contact an attorney unless he gave a blood sample. Cook was not permitted to
contact an attorney, and Deputy Stack eventually attained a blood sample through a
search warrant. At trial, Deputy Stack reaffirmed his statement and “his
understanding” of the law regarding implied consent. Ultimately, the jury found
Cook guilty of wanton murder and recommended a life sentence. The Whitley
Circuit Court accepted the jury’s recommendation.
On direct appeal, Cook raised seven arguments, including challenges
to Deputy Stack’s testimony and the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
conviction of wanton murder. In a March 2004 opinion, our Supreme Court
affirmed Cook’s conviction but remanded for a new sentence. Cook v.
-2- Commonwealth, 129 S.W.3d 351, 355 (Ky. 2004). The Court determined that
Deputy Stack’s recitation of the law was erroneous but harmless under the
circumstances. Id. at 358-59. The Court also concluded that there was sufficient
evidence for the trier of fact to find that Cook’s actions met the elements for
wanton murder, i.e., that he acted wantonly under the circumstances manifesting
extreme indifference to human life. Id. at 362-63. However, our Supreme Court
determined that the Whitley Circuit Court impermissibly allowed the
Commonwealth to introduce evidence of a previously dismissed vehicular
homicide charge during the penalty phase of trial. Id. at 364-65. Thus, Cook’s
sentence was vacated and the matter remanded for a new penalty phase. Id.
On remand, a new sentencing jury recommended a penalty of 50 years
of imprisonment. The Whitley Circuit Court accepted this recommendation and
entered a final judgment and sentence in September 2004. Cook again appealed,
but our Supreme Court affirmed the sentence. Cook v. Commonwealth, No. 2004-
SC-0853-MR, 2005 WL 1412485, at *2 (Ky. Jun. 16, 2005).
In September 2012, our Supreme Court adopted the Kentucky Bar
Association’s recommendation of permanent disbarment for Cook’s defense
counsel, Ronnie Wayne Reynolds (“Reynolds”), after he pleaded guilty in federal
court to a charge of extortion under color of official right. Kentucky Bar Ass’n v.
Reynolds, 378 S.W.3d 310, 311 (Ky. 2012). The extortion scheme involved a
-3- conspiracy between Reynolds and the then Whitley County Sheriff wherein the
Sheriff procured clients for Reynolds to represent in state court. Id. Reynolds then
charged the clients exorbitant legal fees and paid illegal kickbacks to the sheriff in
exchange for his “referral services” and to ensure reduced charges. Id. The extent
and duration of this illegal arrangement is unclear, but Reynolds admitted in his
plea deal to three instances of kickbacks between June 2004 and July 2007. Id. To
be clear, Reynolds represented Cook at his original 2002 trial, his first appeal in
2003-04, his resentencing in September 2004, and his second appeal in 2005.
Reynolds received a 27-month sentence in federal prison, and the sheriff received a
186-month sentence.3
In January 2023, Cook moved to vacate his convictions pursuant to
RCr 11.42 and/or order a new trial pursuant to RCr 10.02(1) and CR 60.02.
Cook’s motion, drafted by new legal counsel, was 25 pages of well-articulated,
well-reasoned arguments. Cook cited more than 30 published cases, properly
represented the applicable court rules and his burden, and presented a coherent,
3 Beyond the extortion, the sheriff was convicted of conspiracy to distribute oxycodone and conspiracy to commit money laundering, and the county bookkeeper pleaded guilty to charges related to money laundering, extortion, and drug distribution due to her participation in the conspiracy from 2003 to 2008. U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Kentucky, FBI ARCHIVES, (1) https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/louisville/press-releases/2011/former-whitley- county-sheriff-sentenced-186-months-for-extortion-money-laundering-and-drug-trafficking- offenses, and (2) https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/louisville/press-releases/2011/bookkeeper-for- former-whitley-county-sheriff-pleads-guilty-to-money-laundering-conspiracy (both last visited May 1, 2026).
-4- legally supported argument. In short, Cook argued that the newly discovered
evidence of corruption demonstrated that the prosecution engaged in misconduct
and that his defense attorney was burdened by a conflict of interest. He asserted
the evidence of criminal conduct between his attorney and the Whitley County
Sheriff supported the claim that the Commonwealth engaged in misconduct by
offering and relying upon false evidence to secure a conviction of wanton murder
in violation of Cook’s Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and a fair trial.
He asserted that the jury and our Supreme Court would not have found various
errors and omissions harmless if the corruption had been known at that time. Cook
argued his motion was timely, and fell within the exceptions to strict timing
requirements, because in prison he was not aware of the criminal conspiracy
involving his defense counsel and the county sheriff.
For two years, the Commonwealth did not respond to Cook’s motion,
nor did the circuit court act. It is unclear why the Commonwealth and the Whitley
Circuit Court viewed their duties as optional.
In May 2025, now more than two years later, Cook moved for a ruling
on his prior motion. In June 2025, the Commonwealth responded to Cook’s
motion but merely submitted a few paragraphs expressing disdain. The
Commonwealth stated that it took personal offense to Cook’s “laughable” motion
but cited no caselaw and made no reference to Cook’s specific arguments. In fact,
-5- the Commonwealth failed to counter a single one of Cook’s assertions. The next
week, the Whitley Circuit Court entered a one-sentence order dismissing Cook’s
motions in full without a hearing, explanation, support, nor rationale. Cook
appealed.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Cook repeats his argument that the newly discovered
evidence of extortion and the illegal kickback scheme between the Whitley County
Sheriff and Reynolds occurring during the time period Cook was prosecuted
demonstrates that (a) the prosecution engaged in misconduct and presented false
testimony from Deputy Stack in order to secure a murder conviction; and (b) trial
counsel labored under a conflict of interest, resulting in a constructive denial of
Cook’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Conversely, the Commonwealth, appellate counsel for the Attorney
General, presented the rebuttal to Cook’s argument that should have been presented
by the Whitley County Commonwealth’s Attorney. However, under these
circumstances, we are not at liberty to analyze the merits of these arguments. We
are a court of review but have no findings and conclusions by the circuit court to
review.
We review orders denying CR 60.02 motions, RCr 11.42 motions, and
RCr 10.02 motions for an abuse of discretion. Grundy v. Commonwealth, 400
-6- S.W.3d 752, 754 (Ky. App. 2013) (citation omitted) (reviewing CR 60.02
motions); Jackson v. Commonwealth, 567 S.W.3d 615, 619 (Ky. App. 2019)
(citation omitted) (reviewing RCr 11.42 motions); St. Clair v. Commonwealth, 451
S.W.3d 597, 617 (Ky. 2014) (citation omitted) (regarding RCr 10.02 motions). A
trial court abuses its discretion if its “decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair,
or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d
941, 945 (Ky. 1999) (citations omitted). As the Whitley Circuit Court’s decision
here is entirely unsupported, we must find the court’s order is “unsupported by
sound legal principles” and thus, an abuse of discretion.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, we VACATE the Whitley Circuit Court order denying
Cook’s motion for post-judgment relief and REMAND for additional proceedings
consistent with this Opinion.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Matthew M. Robinson Russell Coleman Covington, Kentucky Attorney General of Kentucky
Erik Farleigh Assistant Attorney General Frankfort, Kentucky
-7-