BOBBY JOE LEDLOW v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
OCTOBER 28, 2005; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth Of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2004-CA-001479-MR
BOBBY JOE LEDLOW
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM CALLOWAY CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE DENNIS R. FOUST, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 02-CR-00206
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
JUDGE. 1
COMBS, CHIEF JUDGE; McANULTY, JUDGE; PAISLEY, SENIOR
COMBS, CHIEF JUDGE:
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.
On November 25, 2002, Ledlow was indicted on charges
of manufacturing methamphetamine in violation of KRS (Kentucky
Revised Statutes) 218A.1432; theft by unlawful taking in
1
Senior Judge Lewis G. Paisley sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the
Chief Justice pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and
KRS 21.580.
violation of KRS 514.030; and evading a police officer in
violation of KRS 520.095.
Represented by counsel, Ledlow
negotiated a plea agreement with the Commonwealth in which he
pled guilty to each of the charges.
In exchange, the
Commonwealth recommended the minimum sentences of imprisonment
(respectively) of ten years, twelve months, and five years -- to
be served concurrently for a total ten-year term.
Before accepting Ledlow’s guilty plea, the trial court
engaged in a careful and thorough colloquy with him.
Ledlow
acknowledged that he was indeed guilty of the charged offenses,
that he had discussed with his attorney the nature of the crimes
and their penalties, and that they had considered any possible
defenses that he might have.
He then declared that he was
pleading guilty freely and voluntarily.
On April 14, 2003,
Ledlow was sentenced in accordance with the Commonwealth’s
recommendation.
On May 3, 2004, Ledlow, pro se, filed a motion for
relief from his conviction.
His motion was based upon the
decision of the Supreme Court of Kentucky in Kotila v.
Commonwealth, 114 S.W.3d 226 (Ky. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S.
1198 (2004), holding that in order to sustain a conviction under
the provisions of KRS 218A.1432, the Commonwealth had to prove
that a defendant was in possession of all of the ingredients or
all of the equipment necessary to manufacture methamphetamine.
-2-
Ledlow argued in his motion that he did not possess all of the
necessary ingredients or all of the equipment necessary for
manufacture of the drug.
Therefore, he was entitled to relief.
The trial court denied his motion, and this appeal followed.
Ledlow argues on appeal that his conviction should be
vacated since his conduct with respect to the methamphetamine
charge did not constitute a crime according to Kotila.
We
disagree.
Our examination of the record in this case indicates
that the Commonwealth had amassed convincing evidence to prove
that Ledlow had violated the provisions of KRS 218A.1432.
In a
handwritten statement provided to police following his arrest,
Ledlow admitted that he had been collecting the equipment and
ingredients necessary for the manufacture of methamphetamine for
several days prior to his arrest in November 2002.
He even
intimated that he had already begun the manufacturing process.
Ledlow’s statement provides, in part, as follows:
I went to Wal-Mart in Murray Ky. and stole
24 Lithium Batteries. I had George Tayloe
buy a can of Ozark trail camp fluid, he was
unaware of the reason I wanted him to
purchase it. Since about last Saturday I
have been buying pills at various locations
they are being used to make meth. I was
going to use the pills, batteries, camp
fluid, coffee filters, + jugs for the making
of methamphetamines, George Tayloe, Brenda ?
[sic], + Joshua Harris did not know anything
about what I was going to do.
-3-
In light of his clear and unequivocal admissions that
he was undertaking the manufacture of methamphetamine, we must
conclude that Ledlow is not entitled to the extraordinary relief
that he seeks.
Consequently, the trial court did not err by
denying his motion.
The order of the Calloway Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
David James Harris
Frankfort, KY
Gregory D. Stumbo
Attorney General of Kentucky
Jeffrey A. Cross
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, KY
-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.