Pulliam v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Pulliam v. Commonwealth

406 S.W.2d 724, 1966 Ky. LEXIS 209

Court of Appeals of Kentucky·Decided September 30, 1966·Published

Opinion

CLAY, Commissioner.

The sole ground for reversal raised on this appeal is that our habitual criminal procedure, which allows the reading to the jury of an indictment and a conviction of another offense (to determine if the appellant was a second offender), violated appellant’s rights under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and section 11 of the Kentucky Constitution. In three recent cases we have decided this question adversely to appellant’s contention. Jones v. Commonwealth, Ky., 401 S.W.2d 68; Wilson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 403 S.W.2d 705; and Cole v. Commonwealth, Ky., 405 S.W.2d 753 (decided June 17, 1966).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

CLAY, Commissioner.

The sole ground for reversal raised on this appeal is that our habitual criminal procedure, which allows the reading to the jury of an indictment and a conviction of another offense (to determine if the appellant was a second offender), violated appellant’s rights under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and section 11 of the Kentucky Constitution. In three recent cases we have decided this question adversely to appellant’s contention. Jones v. Commonwealth, Ky., 401 S.W.2d 68; Wilson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 403 S.W.2d 705; and Cole v. Commonwealth, Ky., 405 S.W.2d 753 (decided June 17, 1966).

The judgment is affirmed.

Pulliam v. Commonwealth, 406 S.W.2d 724, 1966 Ky. LEXIS 209 (Ky. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

406 S.W.2d 724 (Pulliam v. Commonwealth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related