SHERRILL WOOSLEY v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
NOVEMBER 4, 2005; 2:00 P.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth Of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2004-CA-000970-MR
AND
NO. 2004-CA-001242-MR
SHERRILL WOOSLEY
v.
APPELLANT
APPEALS FROM GRAYSON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE SAM MONARCH, JUDGE
ACTION NO.03-CR-00022
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
BUCKINGHAM AND JOHNSON, JUDGES; EMBERTON, SENIOR JUDGE. 1
EMBERTON, SENIOR JUDGE:
These appeals arising from the same
circuit court action have been designated to be heard together
and we have elected to dispose of them in one opinion.
On March
16, 2004, appellant Sherrill Woosley entered a conditional plea
of guilt to trafficking in a controlled substance in the first
1
Senior Judge Thomas D. Emberton sitting as Special Judge by assignment of
the Chief Justice pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution
and KRS 21.580.
degree, manufacturing methamphetamines, possession of drug
paraphernalia, possession of anhydrous ammonia in an unapproved
container, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon,
preserving for our review in appeal number 2004-CA-000979 the
question of the sufficiency of the affidavit of the police
officer to support execution of a search warrant.
Appellant had
previously been released on a $50,000 full cash bond conditioned
upon his refraining from the commission of other offenses and
using any illegal drugs.
The Commonwealth moved for revocation
of that bond on April 15, 2004, based upon the fact that
appellant had tested positive for use of methamphetamines and
the fact that a new manufacturing charge had been lodged against
him.
The trial judge immediately revoked appellant’s bond and
set a forfeiture hearing.
The propriety of the order forfeiting
the $50,000 bond forms the basis of appeal number 2004-CA001242.
We affirm the decision of the trial court in each
appeal.
Concerning the sufficiency of the officer’s affidavit
to support issuance of a search warrant, appellant argues that
the officer lied concerning information supplied by Barbara
Woosley, appellant’s wife at the time.
Based upon evidence
adduced at a suppression hearing, the trial judge entered an
order in which he concluded that there was no evidence of
intentional errors or mistakes in the detective’s affidavit.
-2-
He
also noted that the facts that Barbara Woosley failed to inform
the officer of a pending divorce proceeding and that she had a
history of domestic violence with appellant were of no
consequence in assessing the officer’s good faith in his
affidavit in support of search warrant.
The trial judge properly observed that evidence seized
pursuant to a warrant later determined to be flawed or invalid
should not be excluded if the officers executing the warrant had
an “objectively reasonable belief in the sufficiency of the
warrant.” 2
Here, the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing
was sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that
while Barbara Woosley may have retracted portions of the
information previously given the officer, such retraction in and
of itself would not serve to undermine the sufficiency of the
affidavit.
On this state of the record, we find absolutely no
basis for disturbing the trial judge’s decision to deny
appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence against him.
Similarly, there was ample evidence before the trial
judge to sustain his ruling of forfeiture of the cash bond.
In
explaining his decision to require forfeiture, the trial judge
noted that appellant had repeatedly ignored the conditions of
his bond, that his “absence of respect for the conditions
imposed upon his liberty by the Court is blatant,” emphasizing
2
Crayton v. Commonwealth, 846 S.W.2d 684, 687 (Ky. 1992).
-3-
that forfeiture was necessary so as not to “seriously diminish
in the public’s eyes the importance of complying with the
Court’s lawful mandates.”
Although the trial judge had
discretion to forfeit some or the entire bond, given these
factors cited in the trial court’s opinion, we perceive no abuse
of discretion in his decision to forfeit the total sum. 3
The judgment of the Grayson Circuit Court is affirmed
in each appeal.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Albert W. Barber, Jr.
Owensboro, Kentucky
Gregory D. Stumbo
Attorney General of Kentucky
Todd D. Ferguson
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
3
See Johnson Bonding Company v. Commonwealth, 487 S.W.2d 911, 914 (Ky.
1972).
-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.
