REGINALD VADEN v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
March 13, 1998; 10:00 a.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
NO. 97-CA-1694-MR
REGINALD VADEN
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE KEN G. COREY, JUDGE
ACTION NOS. 92-CR-3336 & 93-CR-1113
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
* * *
BEFORE:
BUCKINGHAM, GARDNER, AND SCHRODER, JUDGES.
SCHRODER, JUDGE.
Reginald Vaden appeals pro se from an order of
the Jefferson Circuit Court denying his motion for relief under
Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42 and Kentucky Rule
of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02 without a hearing.
He challenges
the merits of his conviction for trafficking in a controlled
substance, the validity of his guilty plea, and the effectiveness
of his counsel.
Finding that Vaden’s claims for relief are
barred because of his guilty plea and previous RCr 11.42 motion,
we affirm.
The following facts are taken from the opinion rendered
in Vaden’s earlier appeal, 94-CA-2722:
Reginald Vaden was charged with and
subsequently indicted by the Jefferson County
Grand Jury for conspiracy to traffic in a
controlled substance I (cocaine), trafficking
in marijuana, possession of a handgun by a
convicted felon, illegal use or possession of
drug paraphernalia and being a persistent
felony offender, second degree. The events
giving rise to the circumstances surrounding
the indictment occurred during the fall of
1992.
On May 17, 1994, with his second counsel of
record, appellant filed a motion to enter a
guilty plea. Both defense counsel and
appellant signed the Commonwealth's offer on
plea of guilty. The plea was accepted and on
July 11, 1994, a judgment of conviction and
sentence was entered. Thereafter, on
October 6, 1994, the appellant, pro se, filed
a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence and judgment[,] alleging entrapment
and ineffective assistance of counsel. The
motion was denied November 4, 1994.
In his first RCr 11.42 motion and appeal, Vaden argued
that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
A panel of
this Court affirmed the circuit court decision in an unpublished
opinion which became final on April 7, 1997.
Although there is
no motion in the record, Vaden apparently again moved for relief
under RCr 11.42 and CR 60.02.
The circuit court denied the
motion in two orders, one entered on May 9, 1997, and the other
on June 6, 1997.
Vaden filed a notice of appeal on June 17,
1997, identifying the June 6 order.
On appeal, Vaden argues that he could not have been
guilty of a conspiracy to traffick in cocaine because it was the
police, not Vaden, who had the cocaine; that the police did not
have probable cause to obtain a search warrant for his home; that
his guilty plea was induced by threats of an improper persistent
felony offender charge; that his guilty plea was invalid because
-2-
he was under the influence of cocaine; and that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel.
Because of the procedural
history in this case, we do not reach the merits of any of his
claims.
A valid guilty plea waives all defenses except that the
indictment charged no offense.
S.W.2d 99, 100 (1994).
Hughes v. Commonwealth, Ky., 875
An RCr 11.42 motion “shall state all
grounds for holding the sentence invalid of which the movant has
knowledge.
Final disposition of the motion shall conclude all
issues that could reasonably have been presented in the same
proceeding."
RCr 11.42(3).
11.42 are barred.
(1980).
Thus, successive motions under RCr
Commonwealth v. Ivey, Ky., 599 S.W.2d 456, 458
CR 60.02 is for relief that is not available by direct
appeal or under RCr 11.42, and the movant must demonstrate why he
is entitled to this extraordinary relief.
Ky., 648 S.W.2d 853, 856 (1983).
Gross v. Commonwealth,
RCr 11.42 forecloses a
defendant from raising any questions under CR 60.02 which are
issues that could have been presented by RCr 11.42 proceedings.
Id. at 857.
See also Alvey v. Commonwealth, Ky., 648 S.W.2d 858
(1983).
The indictment charging Vaden with conspiracy charged
an offense.
“[I]t is not a valid defense that his
co-conspirator, a police agent, did not truly agree to the
conspiracy.”
(1994).
Commonwealth v. Sego, Ky., 872 S.W.2d 441, 443
Vaden waived his right to challenge the existence of a
conspiracy and the validity of the search warrant when he pleaded
-3-
guilty.
His remaining arguments in this appeal either were, or
should have been, raised in his earlier motion under RCr 11.42.
Ivey, supra.
Thus, he is neither entitled to relief under his
current RCr 11.42 motion, nor has he demonstrated that he is
entitled to extraordinary relief under CR 60.02.
Gross, supra.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the circuit
court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
-4-
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Reginald Vaden, Pro Se
St. Mary, Kentucky
A. B. Chandler, III
Attorney General
Paul D. Gilbert
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
-5-
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.