Chavies v. Commonwealth
2011 Ky. LEXIS 161
| Ky. | 2011Background
- Chavies was convicted by a circuit court jury of manufacturing methamphetamine; receipt of stolen property valued between $500 and $10,000; and being a second-degree persistent felony offender, resulting in a total sentence of 50 years.
- Police found a trespasser in a house after pursuing Chavies, learned from Hurley that Chavies took items including a computer and lights, and saw a laptop bag and a box of lights in Chavies’s car.
- A search of Chavies’s vehicle yielded stolen items and a mobile methamphetamine lab; Chavies moved to suppress the vehicle evidence twice, which the trial court denied.
- The grand jury charged Chavies with second-degree burglary, manufacturing methamphetamine, receipt of stolen property, and being a first-degree persistent felony offender; amended charges were later dismissed in the penalty phase search.
- The trial court admitted evidence from the vehicle search at trial; Chavies challenged suppressions and sufficiency, and objected to illicit admission of prior/indicted material in the penalty phase.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of evidence from the vehicle search | Chavies argues the stop lacked reasonable suspicion and the search was unlawful | Chavies contends no exception to the warrant requirement applied | No reversible error; stop and search valid under plain-view and automobile exceptions |
| Sufficiency of proof for manufacturing methamphetamine | Commonwealth proved possession of two or more chemicals/equipment | Chavies argues no chemical testing and ownership proof | Directed verdict denial appropriate; circumstantial evidence sufficient |
| Sufficiency of proof for receipt of stolen property | Commonwealth must prove market value of items | Value evidence not preserved; waiver | Issue waived; review limited to palpable error, and no palpable error found |
| Admission of amended/dismissed charges in penalty phase | Admission was erroneous and prejudicial | Error not preserved for appeal; may be palpable error | Erroneous but not palpable error; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ware v. Commonwealth, 916 S.W.2d 148 (Ky. 1995) (sentencing issues must be jurisdictional to be raised on appeal; evidentiary error here not jurisdictional)
- Robinson v. Commonwealth, 926 S.W.2d 853 (Ky. 1996) (preservation requirements; reversal/remand when preserved evidence error)
- Perdue v. Commonwealth, 916 S.W.2d 148 (Ky. 1995) (sentencing evidentiary errors; remand in capital cases; distinction from current case)
- California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1985) (vehicle exception to warrant requirement applies to readily mobile cars, even when occupants are in custody)