ROCKY D. GRAY V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED : SEPTEMBER 20, 2007
TO BE PUBLISHED
'Supreme
Courf of "PR
2006-SC-000141-MR
ROCKY D . GRAY
V.
APPELLANT
ON APPEAL FROM WEBSTER CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE C. RENE WILLIAMS, JUDGE
NO. 05-CR-000015
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE SCOTT
AFFIRMING
Appellant, Rocky D. Gray, was convicted by a Webster Circuit Court jury
of trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree, illegal possession of
marijuana, and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia (subsequent offender),
all of which were firearm-enhanced . Gray was also found guilty of being a
persistent felony offender in the second degree and was sentenced to a total of
fifty-eight (58) years, to be served consecutively . Gray now appeals to this Court
as a matter of right. Ky. Const. ยง110(2)(b) . He asserts two arguments in his
appeal: 1) that the trial court's order requiring the forfeiture of his money violates
Kentucky's forfeiture law and his due process rights, and 2) that there were
sufficient grounds requiring the court to order a competency evaluation of Gray.
For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm Gray's convictions .
On February 19, 2005, Gray was pulled over by Deputy Steve Madden of
the Webster County Sheriff's Department following several calls complaining of a
van driving erratically. After refusing to take a sobriety test, Gray gave Deputy
Madden consent to search the van, at which time Deputy Madden found drug
paraphernalia including a hemostat with a marijuana cigarette, rolling papers,
baggies, a digital scale, scooper, and ties . He also found several individually
wrapped bundles of methamphetamine labeled with the weights on the bag,
various pills including oxycontin and methadone, several packs of Sudafed,
lithium batteries, and marijuana . In addition, he observed a pistol (with the serial
number filed off) in the open center console of the van, which was within three to
four feet of the bundled methamphetamine . While searching Gray's person,
Deputy Madden found marijuana, two containers of methamphetamine, and
$1,527 .00 in currency .
I. The forfeiture of Gray's money does not violate Kentucky's forfeiture law
or Gray's due process rights .
Gray's first argument is that the forfeiture of the money found during
Deputy Madden's search violates Kentucky forfeiture law and his due process
rights . In particular, Gray argues that the forfeiture was improper because there
was no connection between the money and the charged offenses since the
money was not shown to have been exchanged in the sale of illegal drugs . In
support of his argument, Gray points out that his conviction was not based on
evidence regarding an actual sale or transfer of drugs, but rather upon evidence
that he intended to do so. Gray further argues that the money originated from a
cashed money order given to him by his girlfriend . However, the trial court
refused to admit a photocopy of the money order into evidence because Gray
failed to lay a proper foundation for it.
Kentucky's forfeiture statute, KRS 218A.410, permits the forfeiture of
"[e]verything of value furnished . . . in exchange for a controlled substance in
violation of this chapter, all proceeds . . . traceable to the exchange, and all
moneys . . . used, or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of this chapter."
Brewer v. Commonwealth, 206 S.W.3d 313, 326 (Ky. 2006) . The statute further
provides that it shall be a rebuttable presumption "that all moneys, coin, and
currency found in close proximity to controlled substances, to drug manufacturing
or distributing paraphernalia . . . are presumed to be forfeitable under this
paragraph ." Brewer, 206 S.W.3d at 326 .
"The Commonwealth may meet its initial burden of proof by producing
slight evidence of traceability ." Id. at 326. The Commonwealth must prove that
"the currency or some portion of it had been used or was intended to be used in
a drug transaction ." Osborne v. Commonwealth, 839 S.W.2d 281, 284 (Ky.
1992) (emphasis added) . If the Commonwealth provides additional proof that the
currency sought to be forfeited was found in close proximity then it is deemed
sufficient to make a prima facie case. Id. "Thereafter, the burden is on the
claimant to convince the trier of fact that the currency was not being used in the
drug trade ." 1d. Thus, the trial court is vested with the discretion to determine
whether the burdens contained in KRS 218A .410 are met as well as discretion in
ordering the ultimate forfeiture . Brewer, 206 S.W.3d at 325.
In the present case, the Commonwealth produced evidence that Deputy
Madden found marijuana, two containers of methamphetamine, and $1,527 .00 in
3
currency on Gray's person . The considerable amount of money found on Gray
coupled with the large amount of drugs found in Gray's van - including a large
quantity of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia - leads to a reasonable
conclusion that Gray had used or, at the very least, intended to use the currency
in an illegal drug transaction . See Brewer v. Commonwealth , 206 S.W.3d 313,
327 (Ky. 2006) (stating that money found near marijuana coupled with
Appellant's conviction of trafficking proved that the currency was traceable to the
marijuana, which was sufficient to make a prima facie case) . Thus, the burden
shifted to Gray to rebut the presumption that the currency should not be forfeited,
and he failed to do so. In its discretion, the trial court reasonably concluded that
the currency should be forfeited . The trial court acted appropriately.
11. There were no reasonable grounds to believe that Appellant was
incompetent to stand trial.
Gray's next allegation of error is that the trial court failed to order a
competency evaluation prior to sentencing . At the sentencing, Gray's counsel
informed the court that he had just learned that Gray had mental health problems
and had not received his medications .during trial . A letter written by a certified
psychologist was filed at the hearing and stated :
Mr. Gray is currently being treated for depression, with psychotic
features and a panic disorder . The psychotic symptoms that he
has causes him many problems dealing with his other problems.
Recently there has been some evidence of cycling moods and
OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) symptoms . He has been
treated at this office since 2001 . He sees the psychiatrist and is in
counseling .
The letter further stated that Gray's physical problems, including diabetes,
neuropathy, bad eyes, poor hearing, and leg injuries, as well as prior substance
abuse, had increased his depression and panic symptoms .
Gray's counsel requested that the court grant a new trial, or in the
alternative, hold sentencing in abeyance until an evaluation could be done to
determine Gray's capacity . After reviewing the history of the case, the trial court
ruled that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that Gray was
incompetent, and denied the request.
KRS 504.1 00(l) requires a court to appoint a psychologist or psychiatrist
to examine, treat and report on the defendant's mental condition whenever the
court has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant is incompetent to
stand trial . KRS 504.060(4) defines incompetency to stand trial as where,
because of a mental condition, the defendant lacks the capacity to appreciate the
nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to participate
rationally in his own defense . The standard of review in regard to holding a
competency hearing is, "Whether a reasonable judge . . . should have experienced
doubt with respect to competency to stand trial ." Mills v. Commonwealth, 996
S.W.2d 473, 486 (Ky. 1999) . "It is within the trial court's discretion to determine
whether there are `reasonable grounds' to believe a defendant may be
incompetent to stand trial." Bishop v. Caudill, 118 S .W.3d 159, 161 (Ky. 2003).
"However, once facts known to the trial court are sufficient to place a defendant's
competency at issue, an evaluation and evidentiary hearing are mandatory ." Id .
In this case, the denial of the request was proper . The trial court took into
consideration the fact that the case had been ongoing for a year with no sign of
5
incompetency from Gray. Gray testified competently, and spoke clearly and
intelligently while answering his counsel's questions . On cross-examination Gray
was clever and evasive with his answers. Even Gray's counsel admitted that he
did not detect any signs of mental illness throughout the representation . Gray
fully communicated with his attorney and participated rationally in his own
defense . There being no contrary evidence to support or reasonably believe that
the problems he was being treated for rose to the level of incompetency, the trial
judge did not abuse her discretion in rejecting Gray's late request for a
competency hearing . Thus, no error occurred .
For the reasons set forth herein, the judgment and sentence of the
Webster Circuit Court is affirmed .
Lambert, C.J . ; Cunningham, Minton, Noble and Schroder, JJ ., concur .
Abramson, J ., not sitting .
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT :
Randall L. Wheeler
Assistant Public Advocate
Department for Public Advocacy
100 Fair Oaks Lane, Suite 302
Frankfort, KY 40601
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Gregory D. Stumbo
Attorney General
Kenneth Wayne Riggs
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Attorney General
Criminal Appellate Division
1024 Capital Center Drive
Frankfort, KY 40601
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.