JEFFREY KREIDLER v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: JULY 27, 2001; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
2000-CA-000729-MR
JEFFREY KREIDLER
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA M. SUMME, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 99-CR-00547
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
BUCKINGHAM, EMBERTON AND TACKETT, JUDGES.
EMBERTON, JUDGE: Jeffrey Kreidler appeals the denial of his
motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to operating a motor
vehicle while under the influence and first-degree possession of
a controlled substance.
We affirm.
On January 4, 2000, appellant appeared before the trial
court for a hearing on his motion to plead guilty to the charges
against him.
After reviewing the motion signed by appellant and
his attorney, the trial court conducted an extremely thorough and
probing colloquy in which appellant denied promises, threats or
coercion in relation to his plea.
When asked to state the facts
which supported his guilty plea, appellant at first stated that
he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and had made a
mistake.
The trial court refused to accept that answer informing
appellant he needed to state facts which formed the elements of
the crimes with which he was charged.
Appellant conferred with
his counsel and then responded that he had been driving under the
influence and in possession of a controlled substance on the
occasion in question.
The trial court thereafter accepted
appellant’s plea and scheduled sentencing for February 14, 2000.
On that date, appellant appeared before the trial court
with new counsel and filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea
alleging that his previous counsel had coerced him into pleading
guilty.
It was his new position that he had not driven under the
influence and that a female companion had in fact possessed the
controlled substances.
After hearing argument of counsel, the
trial court took the matter under submission, stating that it
intended to review the video tape of the acceptance of the plea.
On February 21, 2000, the trial court denied
appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea.
In explaining its
decision to deny the motion, the trial court referenced a letter
from appellant’s previous counsel denying any coercive tactics to
influence appellant to plead guilty.
The trial court also noted
that its review of the transcript of the plea disclosed that
appellant was calm and direct and had no difficulty understanding
the proceedings.
Furthermore, it found that appellant’s demeanor
and his interaction with his counsel dispelled any suggestion
that anything of a coercive nature was occurring between
appellant and his counsel.
Appellant was ultimately sentenced to
-2-
two years’ probation in accordance with the Commonwealth’s
initial recommendation.
In Couch v. Commonwealth,1 the court refused to find an
abuse of discretion in the denial of a motion to withdraw,
explaining its decision as follows:
Couch and his counsel were afforded
opportunities down to the very last minute to
withdraw the plea of guilty, and we can find
nothing in this record to indicate that he
was in any wise misled and surely not to the
extent that the plea became involuntary.
This court is of the opinion that the trial
court properly exercised its discretion under
RCR 8.10 in denying Couch’s motion to
withdraw his guilty plea.
Similarly, our review of the record of appellant’s
guilty plea confirms the propriety of the trial court’s
conclusions about appellant’s demeanor and actions at that time.
The Commonwealth fully performed its agreement and we, like the
trial court, are of the opinion that appellant got the benefit of
a very good deal.
There is absolutely no evidence of abuse of
discretion in this case.
As a matter of fact, we take note that
Judge Summe exercised the utmost care in protecting the rights of
Mr. Kreidler during both his hearings.
The decision of the Kenton Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Darrell A. Cox
Covington, Kentucky
Albert B. Chandler III
Attorney General
William L. Daniel II
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
1
Ky., 528 S.W.2d 712, 715 (1975).
-3-
-4-
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.
