Rowe v. Commonwealth

4 Citing cases

  1. Pennington v. Commonwealth

    NO. 2017-CA-000495-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2020)

    The jurors were capable of resolving for themselves any disputes concerning what was said by whom." Rowe v. Commonwealth, 355 S.W.3d 480, 486 (Ky. App. 2011) (emphasis added) (quoting Rowe v. Commonwealth, No. 2006-SC-000356-MR, 2007 WL 1532334, at *5 (Ky. May 24, 2007)). For these reasons, we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying CR 60.02 relief based on the voice-recognition testing.

  2. Rowe v. Commonwealth

    NO. 2018-CA-000266-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2020)

    This Court affirmed the trial court's denial of that motion. Rowe v. Commonwealth, 355 S.W.3d 480 (Ky. App. 2011). He also filed a motion under CR 60.02, which the trial court denied because the allegations in the motion were not supported by the record.

  3. Herrera v. Commonwealth

    NO. 2017-CA-001410-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2018)

    Granting a new trial is discretionary and, absent a showing this discretion was abused, reversal is unwarranted. Rowe v. Commonwealth, 355 S.W.3d 480, 485 (Ky. App. 2011). "The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge's decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles."

  4. Rowe v. Commonwealth

    NO. 2013-CA-001240-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2016)

    In fact, Rowe waited almost a year after this court affirmed the denial of his RCr 10.02 motions to file his RCr 11.42 motion. See Rowe v. Commonwealth, 355 S.W.3d 480 (Ky. App. 2011). The trial court further found that Rowe also failed to show any extraordinary circumstance justifying equitable tolling, stating that RCr 11.42(10)(a) allows an untimely claim only if the facts upon which the claim is based were unknown or could not have been known to the claimant with due diligence.