Rogers v. Commonwealth, 366 S.W.3d 446

Rogers was convicted at trial of two counts of trafficking in a controlled substance, second offense, and one count of possessing a controlled substance, second offense, with a maximum 20-year sentence as a first-degree persistent felony offender.
Evidence arose from two controlled cocaine buys by a confidential informant from Rogers on September 8 and 9, 2009, at Rogers's home and in his garage.
Police obtained a search warrant for Rogers's residence and garage and executed it shortly after the second buy, finding over twenty grams of cocaine and drug paraphernalia in the garage along with cash and items used in drug distribution.
Rogers moved to suppress all evidence from the search, arguing the warrant was obtained after an unlawful pre-search, but the suppression motion was denied.
The jury trial also produced charges based on the sales to the informant and the possession with intent to sell from the garage evidence, which Rogers moved to sever; the court denied severance.
Rogers sought resentencing under House Bill 463 (2011), arguing retroactive penalty mitigations; judgment was pronounced before HB 463 took effect.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the garage evidence admissible after the timing discrepancy on the warrant?	Rogers argued the search occurred before issuance, invalidating the garage evidence.	Rogers contends the misdating was a judicial mistake not clerical.	No error; search valid; clerical correction permitted.
Did the trial court err in denying severance of charges?	Joinder prejudiced Rogers by mixing sales with possession-to-sell evidence.	Joinder was proper as evidence would be admissible in separate trials to prove intent and plan.	Joinder proper; no undue prejudice.
Was Rogers denied a meaningful cross-examination of the forensic chemist?	Impeachment by inquiring about theft of a controlled substance should have been allowed.	The court properly limited to pending theft charge and administrative leave; broader inquiry irrelevant.	Court did not abuse discretion; impeachment properly limited.
Is Rogers entitled to resentencing under House Bill 463 (2011)?	HB 463 provides retroactive penalty mitigations for judgments pronounced after the law's effective date.	HB 463 should apply retroactively to his case.	No; judgment pronounced before HB 463 took effect; not eligible for HB 463 sentencing provisions.

Commonwealth v. Howlett, 328 S.W.3d 191 (Ky.2010) (court records may be judicially noticed for occurrence/timing, not for truth of outside allegations)
Peyton v. Commonwealth, 253 S.W.3d 504 (Ky.2008) (joinder of multiple trafficking charges proper where admissible in separate trials)
Roark v. Commonwealth, 90 S.W.3d 24 (Ky.2002) (undue prejudice standard for severance; relevance of admissible evidence across offenses)
Penman v. Commonwealth, 194 S.W.3d 237 (Ky.2006) (joinder and admission of evidence across related offenses)
Davenport v. Commonwealth, 177 S.W.3d 763 (Ky.2005) (venue outside source of bias considerations; adverse inference limits)