REGINALD MACK v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
DECEMBER 2, 2005; 2:00 P.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth Of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2004-CA-002564-MR
REGINALD MACK
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM BELL CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE JAMES L. BOWLING, JR., JUDGE
ACTION NO. 02-CR-00054
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
TAYLOR AND VANMETER, JUDGES; POTTER, SENIOR JUDGE. 1
TAYLOR, JUDGE:
Reginald Mack brings this pro se appeal from a
November 9, 2004, order of the Bell Circuit Court denying his
Ky. R. Crim. P. (RCr) 11.42 motion to vacate the twenty-year
sentence upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of robbery in
the first degree.
We affirm.
Appellant was indicted for and found guilty by a jury
of first-degree robbery.
imprisonment.
1
He was sentenced to twenty years’
Being unsatisfied with the jury verdict,
Senior Judge John W. Potter sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the
Chief Justice pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and
Kentucky Revised Statutes 21.580.
appellant pursued a direct appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court.
Appellant’s sentence was affirmed in Mack v. Commonwealth, 136
S.W.3d 434 (Ky. 2004).
Thereafter, appellant filed the instant
RCr 11.42 motion to vacate sentence.
On November 9, 2004, the
circuit court denied appellant’s motion, thus precipitating this
appeal.
Appellant contends the circuit court committed
reversible error by denying his RCr 11.42 motion without an
evidentiary hearing.
of error.
Appellant has raised numerous allegations
We observe that he has filed a pro se brief which is
handwritten.
As a result, the arguments are difficult to
discern, but we have made every effort to do so.
Appellant initially contends the trial court erred by
failing to instruct the jury upon theft by unlawful taking and
assault in the fourth degree.
This issue was raised in his
direct appeal and decided by the Supreme Court in Mack.
It is
well-established that appellant cannot raise an issue in an RCr
11.42 motion that could have or was raised on direct appeal.
Haight v. Commonwealth, 41 S.W.3d 436 (Ky. 2001).
As such, we
summarily reject the above contention.
Appellant has also raised a plethora of allegations
relating to the alleged ineffective assistance of his trial
counsel.
To prevail, appellant must demonstrate that trial
counsel’s performance was deficient and that such deficient
-2-
performance was prejudicial.
U.S. 668 (1984).
See Strickland v. Washington, 466
It is firmly established that an RCr 11.42
motion must state specific grounds for relief and also must
state facts in support of these grounds.
Stanford v.
Commonwealth, 854 S.W.2d 742 (Ky. 1993).
An evidentiary hearing
is only mandated if the motion raises grounds that could not be
conclusively refuted upon the face of the record.
Commonwealth, 411 S.W.2d 321 (Ky. 1967).
Lewis v.
Conclusory allegations
of error are insufficient to require an evidentiary hearing.
Wedding v. Commonwealth, 468 S.W.2d 273 (Ky. 1971).
Appellant has failed to demonstrate entitlement to
relief.
His allegations of ineffective assistance of trial
counsel are either conclusory or lack any basis in fact.
Furthermore, appellant failed to prove prejudice resulting from
counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance.
Throughout his brief,
appellant has stated facts without any evidentiary basis and has
advanced incredulous arguments.
Simply put, we conclude that
appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel
are refuted upon the face of the record and the circuit court
did not err by summarily denying his RCr 11.42 motion.
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Bell
Circuit Court is affirmed.
-3-
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Reginald Mack, Pro Se
Eddyville, Kentucky
Gregory D. Stumbo
Attorney General of Kentucky
James C. Shackelford
Assistant Attorney General of
Kentucky
Frankfort, Kentucky
-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.