Court Opinion

ID: 9769023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:03:52.097727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:50.205413
License: Public Domain

WINTERSHEIMER, Justice.
This appeal is from a judgment based on a jury verdict which convicted Kroth of third-degree burglary, two counts of trafficking in a controlled substance and two counts of first-degree persistent felony offender. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison.
The principal issue is whether convictions under two counts of possession of a con*681trolled substance amounted to double jeopardy; other questions presented are whether the prosecutor’s reference to allegedly inadmissible hearsay evidence in his opening statement was reversible error; whether it was reversible error to allow a narcotics officer to testify that the defendant had the drugs for sale and not for personal use, and whether counts 1 and 2 of the indictment were properly enhanced by the persistent felony offender charge.
Kroth was charged with the burglary of a drug store in which entrance was gained by drilling a hole in the wall when the store was closed. A large quantity of various drugs and ten cartons of cigarettes were stolen. Kroth appeals from his conviction on the charges.
This Court affirms the judgment of the circuit court.
The conviction of Kroth under Counts 2 and 3 of the indictment did not constitute double jeopardy. Possession with intent to sell the stolen drugs constitutes a violation of two separate and distinct statutory provisions. KRS 218A.080 and KRS 218A.100 state the differences between Schedule III and Schedule IV types of controlled substances. Kroth could not be convicted of carrying face powder or toothpowder. The law prohibits only controlled substances or drugs. KRS 218A.140 provides in part that no person shall traffic in any controlled substance. The word “any” means exactly what it says. It means possession with intent to sell of any controlled substance regardless of its statutory schedule classification suffices for purposes of prosecution under this chapter.
It was not reversible error for the trial judge to allow the prosecutor to refer to allegedly inadmissible hearsay evidence in his opening statement which was to the effect that a police officer had received information that the defendant had burglarized the store.
An opening statement is not evidence and the trial judge admonished the jurors to that effect. The prosecutor himself told the jury that the opening statement was not evidence. The outcome of the trial would not have been any different had the complained of statement been excluded. The evidence against Kroth was overwhelming. Tests presented at trial showed the pieces of cement found in his apartment matched with samples taken from the scene of the crime. The plasterboard dust on the tools in his possession was of the same type found in the drug store wall. The defendant’s fingerprints and handwriting were found on a map at the scene of the crime and plasterboard dust was present on his boots when he was arrested.
The complained of statement was not offered in evidence to prove the guilt of the defendant. It was made during opening statement and not repeated.
The trial judge did not commit reversible error in allowing Officer Spaw to testify that in his opinion the defendant had the pills in his possession for sale and not for personal use. The officer testified as an expert witness. He referred to the large quantity of drugs found in the home of Kroth and stated that such a large quantity indicated that they were for sale, not personal use, based on his ten years of experience as a narcotics officer.
There was no reversible error in permitting the sentence under both Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment to be enhanced by the persistent felony offender charge. Once the status of persistent felony offender has been established, the defendant can receive enhanced punishment on each and every subsequent felony. Wingo v. Ringo, Ky., 408 S.W.2d 469 (1966).
The argument that Kroth did not receive notice that the PFO charge would apply to both principal offenses is unconvincing. He was charged with being a PFO in the same indictment, and he cannot claim that he did not receive adequate notice. He was given sufficient notice of the nature of the PFO charge and was given a full and fair opportunity to prepare a defense.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
*682LAMBERT and STEPHENSON, JJ., concur.
GANT, J., concurs and files a separate concurring opinion.
STEPHENS, C.J., and LEIBSON, J., dissent by separate opinions.
VANCE, J., joins in STEPHENS’ dissent.