Stanfield v. Commonwealth
This text of 487 S.W.2d 949 (Stanfield 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.
Opinion
This is an appeal from a refusal of the trial court in an RCr 11.42 post-conviction [950]*950proceeding to set aside the movant’s conviction upon a plea of guilty to' a charge of storehouse breaking which motion centers principally, in general terms, on alleged inadequacy of counsel. Although counsel was appointed for the accused on the day of his arraignment and plea of guilty to the charge of storehouse breaking, four charges involving the habitual criminal act were dismissed by the trial court. It is apparent from the record that appointed counsel adequately represented him, that the accused voluntarily pled guilty to the charge of storehouse breaking, and that the general allegations of his motion are patently insufficient to justify a hearing in the trial court. Maggard v. Commonwealth, Ky., 394 S.W.2d 893 (1965); Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970).
The judgment denying post-conviction relief is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
487 S.W.2d 949, 1972 Ky. LEXIS 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanfield-v-commonwealth-kyctapp-1972.