Hopewell appeals from an order of the Boone Circuit Court denying his RCr 11.42 motion for post-conviction relief. The only issue is whether the trial judge erred in denying the motion without an evidentia-ry hearing or the appointment of counsel to determine if Hopewell had been denied effective assistance of counsel at trial. Hearings and appointments are not necessary when the record in the case refutes the movant’s allegations.
Newsome v. Commonwealth,
Ky.,
Hopewell claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial because his counsel failed to move for a directed verdict at the close of the case. Hopewell was convicted for first-degree robbery and kidnapping and received consecutive sentences of 15 and 20 years. The convictions were affirmed by the Kentucky Supreme Court on appeal.
Hopewell v. Commonwealth,
Ky.,
The evidence presented at trial was that Hopewell and a codefendant were in Hopewell’s car, and they stopped at an Amoco service station. The codefendant took a gun belonging to Hopewell, robbed the attendant, forced him into the car, tied him, and instructed Hopewell to drive away. Hopewell alleged that he was an unknowing participant in the robbery. Despite Hopewell’s contention, the evidence was such that a jury could believe that he was a knowing participant, and he was certainly not entitled to a directed verdict. The standard for appellate review is that if, under the evidence as a whole, it would not be clearly unreasonable for a jury to find the defendant guilty, then he is not entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal.
Commonwealth v. Sawhill,
Ky.,
The standard for reviewing an allegation of ineffective assistance involves two things. First, there must be a finding of an error in performance by the counsel, and secondly, there must be a finding that prejudice resulted from that error which had an adverse effect on the judgment.
Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S.-,
The record speaks for itself, and no evi-dentiary hearing was necessary. The order of the Boone Circuit Court denying Hopewell’s RCr 11.42 motion is affirmed.
All concur.
