2005 Unpublished Court of Appeals Opinions Index

Table of Cases
L

Use Adobe's Conversion Tool to convert the following PDF files into text in the event that you are viewing this page with assistive technology that is not compatible.


Lane v. Com, 2004-CA-000966 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Mark Lane, pro se, has appealed from an order of the Kenton Circuit Court entered on April 27, 2004, which denied his pro se CR1 60.022 motion for jail time credit pursuant to KRS3 532.120(3) and (4). Having concluded that the Kenton Circuit Court properly denied Lane’s motion as untimely, we affirm.

Lanier v Com, 2004-CA-000185 -- Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Douglas Lanier appeals from a summary judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court in favor of Commonwealth of Kentucky and Kentucky Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter referred to collectively as KCHR) on Lanier’s claims of gender discrimination and retaliation. We affirm.

Lang v Com, 2003-CA-001945 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

In 1984 James Lang was sentenced on multiple counts of first degree robbery, enhanced by a further charge of persistent felony offender. His sentence on one of the indictments (No. 84-CR-131) was forty years’ imprisonment. This was later amended to a thirty-five year sentence in 1990. In August 2003 Lang sought relief pursuant to CR 60.02 (e) to have his sentence on No. 84-CR-131 amended to twenty years, which he claimed was the number of years arrived at during plea bargain negotiations. The Campbell Circuit Court denied Lang’s motion, for the reasons stated in the Commonwealth’s response filed herein, on August 18, 2003, and he appeals. We affirm.

Lawson v Com, 2003-CA-002350 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Leslie Lawson, pro se, has appealed from the September 29, 2003, order of the Laurel Circuit Court which denied his pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the trial court’s final judgment and sentence of imprisonment pursuant to RCr2 11.42, without holding an evidentiary hearing Having concluded that the trial court did not err in denying Lawson’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel without holding an evidentiary hearing, we affirm.

Lawson v Com, 2003-CA-002269 --Not To Be Published ; Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part and Remanding -- PDF

Curtis Lawson and Darrell Tyrone Lawson were tried jointly following the death of Curtis’s eighteen-month-old child in a single car accident. Both Curtis and Darrell alleged that the other was the driver of the car at the time of the fatal accident. Following a jury trial, both Curtis and Darrell were found guilty of second-degree manslaughter and sentenced to five years imprisonment. In that we believe the jury instructions were fatally flawed, we reverse both convictions.

Leach v Com, 2003-CA-002672 -- Not Published ; Vacating and Remanding -- PDF

Benny Leach appeals from a final judgment of the Whitley Circuit Court convicting him of assault in the second degree for stabbing Glennis Anderson, Jr., with a knife. He was sentenced to serve six years in prison. In addition, Leach was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $10,707 to Jellico Community Hospital, where Anderson underwent surgery for his wounds. On appeal, Leach argues that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on fourthdegree assault. He also contends that the trial court exceeded its authority in ordering him to pay restitution to the hospital.

Ledlow v Com., 2004-CA-001479 --Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Bobby Joe Ledlow appeals from an order of the Calloway Circuit Court entered on May 28, 2004, denying his motion filed pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02. We affirm.

Letterlough v Com, 2004-CA-000771 -- Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Everett L. Letterlough has appealed from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the Jefferson Circuit Court on March 16, 2004, following his conditional plea of guilty to the charges of trafficking in a controlled substance in the first degree (cocaine), possession of a firearm by a convicted felon,2 illegal possession of drug paraphernalia while in possession of a firearm,3 illegal possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) while in possession of a firearm,4 and being a persistent felony offender in the first degree (PFO I).5 Having concluded that the trial court’s findings of fact in support of its order denying Letterlough’s motion to suppress evidence are supported by substantial evidence and that its application of the law to those facts is correct as a matter of law, we affirm.

Lewis V Com, 2003-CA-002463--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Donald G. Lewis appeals from the final judgment and sentence, which imposed a maximum term of five years’ imprisonment. The judgment followed what the record proves to be a voluntary and intelligent guilty plea to third-degree sodomy in accordance with a plea bargain made with the Commonwealth. Finding no error in the proceedings in circuit court, we affirm.

Lewis v Com, 2004-CA-000049 -- Not Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Paul William Lewis appeals from a November 18, 2003 order of the Harlan Circuit Court denying his motion for relief pursuant to CR2 60.02(f). We affirm, but for different reasons than those set forth by the trial court.

Lewis v Com,2004-CA-000512 -- Not Published ; Affirming and Granting Motion for Leave to Withdraw -- PDF

On August 19, 2003, a Fayette County grand jury returned an indictment charging Charles Christopher Lewis with thirteen counts of theft by unlawful taking over $300.00,1 two counts of theft by deception over $300.00,2 four counts of theft by deception under $300.00,3 and one count of being a persistent felony offender in the first degree.4 Lewis filed a motion to suppress incriminating written and oral statements which he made to his employer. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Thereafter, on January 30, 2004, Lewis entered a conditional guilty plea. In exchange for his guilty plea, the Commonwealth amended the remaining theft charges to misdemeanors. Pursuant to the agreement with the Commonwealth, the trial court sentenced Lewis to a total of twenty years’ imprisonment. In the appeal of the reserved suppression issue, Lewis’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,5 stating that there are no matters which may serve as a basis for a good-faith appeal. Furthermore, we have reviewed the record and the videotape of the suppression hearing. We likewise find no merit to this appeal.

Logan v Com, 2004-CA-001250 -- Not To be Published ; Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part and Remanding -- PDF

Fleming Logan brings this appeal from a May 25, 2004, order denying his Ky. R. Crim. P. (RCr) 11.42 motion to vacate judgment entered upon a guilty plea to one count of second-degree sodomy and four counts of first-degree sexual abuse. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

Logan v Com., 2004-CA-002562 -- Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Courtney Logan appeals from an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court denying his motion for post-conviction relief, pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42, without an evidentiary hearing. Logan argues that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate his case before advising him to plead guilty. In addition, Logan contends that he would not have pled guilty had counsel advised him that he could have been convicted of a misdemeanor charge, rather than the felony charged in the indictment. We disagree that counsel’s performance rendered Logan’s guilty plea involuntary and, thus, affirm the trial court.

Love v Com, 2003-CA-002175--Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Christopher Love appeals from an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court denying his motion to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to RCr1 11.42. The issue is whether the circuit court correctly determined, based on an examination of the trial record, that Love did not receive the ineffective assistance of counsel. We conclude that the circuit court ruled correctly, and we thus affirm.

Love v Com, 2003-CA-002175 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

Christopher Love appeals from an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court denying his motion to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to RCr1 11.42. The issue is whether the circuit court correctly determined, based on an examination of the trial record, that Love did not receive the ineffective assistance of counsel. We conclude that the circuit court ruled correctly, and we thus affirm.

Lowe v Com. ,2004-CA-002476 -- Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

Lester Lowe appeals, pro se, from an order of the Taylor Circuit Court denying his petition for post conviction relief pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

Luckett v Com, 2004-CA-001175 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

An exception to the Rape Shield Rule, KRE 2 412, permits the introduction of evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim with respect to the accused of sexual misconduct when this evidence is offered by the accused to prove consent on the occasion charged. Charged with having raped the victim by forcibly engaging in vaginal intercourse with her, Anthony Doyle Luckett tried to introduce evidence at trial that on prior occasions, the alleged victim had performed oral sex on him in exchange for drug money. The circuit court refused to admit Luckett’s proffered evidence reasoning that the fact that the victim may have consented to oral sex with Luckett on other occasions did not tend to prove that she consented to vaginal sex on the occasion charged in the indictment. We agree with the circuit court’s application of KRE 412, and we affirm.

Ludwick v Com, 2003-CA-001621 -- Not To Be Published ; Affirming -- PDF

James Ray Ludwick has appealed from an order entered by the Taylor Circuit Court on July 17, 2003, which denied his pro se motion, pursuant to RCr1 11.42, to vacate, set aside, or correct his five-year sentence, without holding an evidentiary hearing. Having concluded that the record conclusively resolves all of Ludwick’s claims, we affirm.

Lynch v Com, 2004-CA-000280 -- Not To Be Published; Affirming -- PDF

In December 2002, Christian County Deputy Sheriffs Mike Johnson and Ross Littlepage were investigating a domestic disturbance near Hillwood Circle in Hopkinsville when Scott Luther approached them. Luther spoke with Littlepage telling the deputy that his two pet dogs had died and that he suspected his neighbor, Jeannette Quarles, of poisoning them. Luther, who had noticed several dog bowls in Quarles’ backyard, asked Littlepage if he could take samples from the bowls. According to Littlepage’s later testimony, he told Luther to do what he had to do.
Return to the Main Table of Cases