WILLIAM G. TURPIN v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
December 11, 1998; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
1997-CA-003188-MR
WILLIAM G. TURPIN
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM HARLAN CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE FARMER HELTON, SPECIAL JUDGE
ACTION NO. 82-CR-150
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
**
BEFORE:
**
**
**
**
KNOX, MILLER, AND SCHRODER, JUDGES.
MILLER, JUDGE: William G. Turpin brings this pro se appeal from a
November 19, 1997 order of the Harlan Circuit Court.
We affirm.
In August 1985, appellant entered a plea of guilty to
third-degree burglary (Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 511.040),
and criminal mischief in the first degree (KRS 512.020) in
exchange for a 2-1/2 year sentence of imprisonment.
On September
23, 1996, appellant filed a Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr)
11.42 motion to set aside judgment and a motion for appointment
of counsel.
On November 19, 1997, the Harlan Circuit Court
overruled appellant's RCr 11.42 motion without an evidentiary
hearing and overruled his motion for appointment of counsel.
This appeal followed.
Appellant contends that his guilty plea was obtained in
violation of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23
L. Ed. 2d 274 (1969).
Specifically, appellant asserts that he
was not informed at the time of his guilty plea of his right to
confront his accusers.
In the “Judgment and Sentence on Plea of
Guilty,” it specifically recites that appellant agreed and
understood that he was knowingly and voluntarily waiving his
right to “confront and cross examine witnesses.”
As such, we are
of the opinion that the record clearly refutes appellant's
contention that he was not so advised.
Appellant also maintains that his guilty plea was the
result of counsel's ineffectiveness.
Specifically, he contends
that his guilty plea was “not knowingly.”
Appellant asserts that
trial counsel provided misinformation concerning what elements
would be necessary for the Commonwealth to obtain a conviction
upon the burglary charge.
contention.
We perceive no merit in this
Appellant has failed to offer specific proof
thereof, and the record itself contradicts same.
In the
“Judgment and Sentence on Plea of Guilty,” appellant averred that
he understood “the nature of the charges against him . . . .”
As
such, we are of the opinion that appellant's RCr 11.42 motion is
refuted upon the face of the record, thus entitling him neither
to an evidentiary hearing nor appointment of counsel.
See Sparks
v. Commonwealth, Ky. App., 721 S.W.2d 726 (1986).
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the circuit
court is affirmed.
-2-
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
William G. Turpin, Pro Se
Indiana State Prison
Michigan City, IN
A. B. Chandler III
Attorney General
and
Joseph R. Johnson
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, KY
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
