ROBERT COBB V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
V.
APPEAL FROM FULTON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE WILLIAM LEWIS SHADOAN, JUDGE
01-CR-00073
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE WINTERSHEIMER
AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART AND REMANDING
This appeal is from a judgment based on a jury verdict which convicted Cobb of
two counts of first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance, second offense . He was
sentenced to a total of forty years in prison.
The questions presented are whether the verdict form used in the guilt phase
was correct ; whether the failure to instruct the jury on concurrent or consecutive
sentences is palpable error; whether it was palpable error to instruct the jury to
recommend a sentence within the enhanced penalty range without expressly finding
Cobb guilty of being a subsequent offender ; whether Cobb was entitled to a directed
verdict ; and whether the trial judge erred in not continuing the formal sentencing of
Cobb.
Cobb was indicted on three counts of trafficking in a controlled substance,
second offense, one count of possession of a controlled substance, and being a first-
degree persistent felony offender. The morning of trial, the Commonwealth moved to
sever the charges and only try two counts of the trafficking charges. Those two
charges involved controlled drug buys made by a confidential informant being paid by
the Fulton County Sheriff's Department .
Defense counsel made no objection and the
trial judge granted the motion.
At trial, the confidential informant testified about the two controlled drug buys
made on different dates . In addition, the Sheriff and the deputy testified about the
procedures used in both buys and the surveillance they conducted . Both drug buys
were recorded on audio and videotape and played for the jury . However, the videotape
ran out on the second drug buy before the entire transaction was completed. A KSP
lab technician testified that the samples from the drug buys tested positive for cocaine.
Cobb offered no evidence in his defense . The jury convicted him of two counts
of first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance, second offense. He was sentenced
to twenty years on each of the charges, to run consecutively for a total of forty years in
prison . This appeal followed .
I . Guilt Phase Verdict Form
Cobb argues that the trial judge erred to his substantial prejudice and denied him
due process of law by failing to provide the jury with a verdict form that allowed them to
find him either guilty or not guilty of each of the separate charges in the indictment . He
concedes that this issue is not properly preserved for appellate review but seeks review
pursuant to RCr 10 .26.
The verdict form for the guilt phase of the trial read as follows:
Verdict Form
We the jury, find the Defendant, Robert Cobb, NOT GUILTY
Foreperson
OR
We, the Jury, find the Defendant, Robert Cobb, GUILTY
under Instruction No . 1 of Trafficking in a Controlled
Substance in the First Degree on May 18, 2001 .
Foreperson
AND/OR
We, the Jury, find the Defendant, Robert Cobb, Guilty under
Instruction No. 2 of Trafficking in a Controlled Substance in
the First Degree on June 1, 2001
Foreperson
This verdict form was erroneous . When a defendant is charged with multiple
counts, the jury must receive an authorized verdict instruction and a verdict form that
contains an authorized verdict of guilty or not guilty for each individual count . See 1
Cooper, Kentucky Instructions to Juries (Criminal) §2 .01C & §2.09A (1999). However,
considering all the circumstances including the overwhelming evidence of guilt, there
was no manifest injustice and no palpable error.
II . Concurrent/Consecutive Sentences
Cobb contends that the trial judge erred in violation of KRS 532 .055(2) by
prohibiting the jury from recommending whether the sentences should run concurrent or
consecutive . He admits that this issue is not properly preserved for appellate review
but seeks review pursuant to RCr 10 .26.
The error did not deprive Cobb of any constitutional right to a fair trial; it did not
affect any substantive right and it did not result in a manifest injustice . There was no
palpable error of any kind .
III . Enhanced Penalty Instruction
Cobb also complains that he was sentenced to an illegally enhanced term of
years because the jury was incorrectly instructed to recommend a sentence within the
enhanced penalty range without expressly finding him guilty of being a subsequent
offender . Once again, Cobb concedes that this issue was not properly preserved for
appellate review but raises it pursuant to RCr 10 .26.
During the penalty phase, the jury was given a one-page instruction and a onepage verdict form . The instruction page read as follows :
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY
PENALTY PHASE
It is now your duty to determine punishment to be
imposed upon the Defendant. You may consider the
evidence presented to you during the first phase of the trial,
as well as evidence presented to you during the second
phase, in your deliberations .
KRS 218A.1412, Trafficking in a Controlled Substance in the
First Degree, Second offense, a Class B Felony, you will fix
the Defendant's punishment at confinement in the
penitentiary for a term of not less than 10 years nor more
than 20 years, in your discretion .
The verdict of the Jury must be unanimous and must
be signed by one of you as Foreperson. You must use the
forms provided in writing your verdict.
The verdict form read as follows :
Verdict Form
Penalty Phase
We, the Jury, having found the Defendant, Robert Cobb,
GUILTY under instruction No. 1 of Trafficking in a Controlled
Substance in the First Degree, Second Offense, do set the
Defendant's sentence at a term of confinement in the
penitentiary for
years.
Foreperson
AND
We, the Jury, having found the Defendant, Robert Cobb,
GUILTY under Instruction No. 2 of Trafficking in a Controlled
Substance in the First Degree, Second Offense, do set the
Defendant's sentence at a term of confinement in the
penitentiary for
years .
Foreperson
During the penalty phase, the circuit clerk read the prior felony convictions into
the record . The evidence was not contested . However, the instruction set out above
was inadequate because the jury made no finding of guilt regarding the prior offense
enhancement . Considering all the circumstances, we believe the failure to properly
instruct the jury in this situation was palpable error. On remand, we believe it would be
helpful for the trial judge to follow the penalty phase instructions and form verdict set
out in 1 Cooper, Kentucky Instructions to Juries (Criminal) §12.21 and 12.24 (1999).
IV. Directed Verdict
Cobb argues that the trial judge erred to his substantial prejudice and denied him
state and federal due process of law by denying his motion for a directed verdict
regarding the June 1, 2001, offense charged in Count II of the indictment. We
disagree .
On a motion for a directed verdict, the trial judge must draw all fair and
reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the Commonwealth .
Commonwealth v. Benham , Ky., 816 S.W .2d 186 (1991). If the evidence is sufficient to
induce a reasonable juror to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is
guilty, a directed verdict should not be given. Id . The standard for appellate review of a
denial of a motion for a directed verdict based on insufficient evidence is if under the
evidence as a whole, it would not be clearly unreasonable for a jury to find the
defendant guilty, he is not entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal . Commonwealth v.
Sawhill , Ky., 660 S .W .2d 3 (1983) .
Here, the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction
of Cobb for trafficking in a controlled substance. A confidential informant testified about
the controlled drug buy.
The circumstances concerning his background were fully
explored on cross-examination . Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses are
within the province of the jury. See Skimmerhorn v. Commonwealth , Ky.App., 998
S .W .2d 771 (1998) . The fact that the videotape ran out before the transaction was
completed in the second drug buy did not preclude a conviction . The testimony of the
confidential informant was sufficient. The trial judge properly denied the motion by
Cobb for a directed verdict.
V. Formal Sentencing
Finally, Cobb contends that the trial judge erred in not continuing the formal
sentencing when he questioned the integrity and completeness of the surveillance tape
played to the jury, questioned his trial counsel's failure to view the tape prior to trial, and
questioned why his trial counsel was not present at the sentencing proceeding . We
disagree .
Although his original trial counsel did not represent him, Cobb was represented
by counsel at the formal sentencing hearing . Cobb has other appropriate forms of relief
available to him to pursue these issues and we will not address them at this time .
The conviction is affirmed but the sentence is reversed and this matter is
remanded for a new sentencing hearing .
Lambert, C .J ., Cooper, Graves, Johnstone and Keller, JJ ., concur. Stumbo, J.
dissents and would reverse the guilt phase of this trial as well due to the improper guilt
phase verdict form as well as the failure to instruct the jury to determine whether any
sentences should run concurrently or consecutively.
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT :
Misty Dugger
Assistant Public Advocate
Department of Public Advocacy
Suite 302, 100 Fair Oaks Lane
Frankfort, KY 40601
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
A. B . Chandler III
Attorney General of Kentucky
Perry T. Ryan
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Appellate Division
Office of the Attorney General
1024 Capital Center Drive
Frankfort, KY 40601-8204
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.