LOUIS LEE ANDERSON V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IMPORTANT NOTICE
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION
THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED."
PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C),
THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE
CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER
CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE ; HOWEVER,
UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS,
RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR
CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED
OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE
BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR CONSIDERATION
BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED
DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A COPY OF THE
ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG WITH THE
DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE
ACTION .
RENDERED : OCTOBER 23, 2008
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Vit
6*Uyrrntr C~Vurf of F~-A
2007-SC-000904-MR
APPELLANT
LOUIS LEE ANDERSON
ON APPEAL FROM MERCER CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE DARREN PECKLER, JUDGE
NO. 06-CR-00001
V.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
VACATING AND REMANDING
The underlying facts of this case, though tragic, are simple and
uncontested . Appellant, Louis Lee Anderson, who was seventeen (17) at the
time of his crimes, was charged with murder and first degree robbery in
connection with the death of Louise Pulliam . Appellant pled guilty to these
charges and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of probation or
parole . He now appeals to this Court as a matter of right. Ky Const. ยง 110(2)(b) .
I.
BACKGROUND
On the evening of January 13, 2006, Pulliam had been on the phone with
her daughter when Appellant appeared at the door of her residence claiming he
needed fuel and a drink of water. Pulliam was familiar with Appellant and told
her daughter that "one of the Anderson boys who used to live across the street"
was at the door. Pulliam then ceased the telephone conversation, ostensibly to
assist Appellant .
Pulliam's daughter tried to contact her mother later that night and became
alarmed when she did not answer her calls. The police were ultimately
summoned and, when they arrived at Pulliam's residence, found her dead in the
front hallway. Based upon information given to police by Pulliam's daughter, a
search immediately ensued for Appellant . Appellant was subsequently located in
a motel room with blood on his clothing and missing items from Pulliam's home .
Though initially detained at a juvenile detention facility, Appellant was later
transferred to the Mercer Circuit Court to be proceeded against as a youthful
offender. On February 10, 2006, Appellant was indicted in circuit court for
murder and first degree robbery. Thereafter, Appellant filed a motion in limine
asserting that life without the possibility of parole was not a sentencing option .
The trial court denied Appellant's motion, holding that life without parole was a
proper sentencing option .
Appellant ultimately entered an open guilty plea, with no recommended
sentence given by the Commonwealth, conditioned on a reservation of his right
to appeal the denial of his prior motion regarding life without parole as a
sentencing option . RCr 8 .09. Thereafter, Appellant was, in fact, sentenced to life
without parole by the trial judge.
Appellant's sentence serves as the sole basis of his appeal. He argues
that he was improperly sentenced and should have been sentenced pursuant to
the juvenile provisions of KRS 640.040 . Because of our recent decision in
Shepherd v. Commonwealth, 251 S .W.3d 309 (Ky. 2008), we agree.
II.
ANALYSIS
Appellant asserts that a sentence of life without parole is an impermissible
sentence by virtue of his classification as a youthful offender. Likewise, Appellee
concedes that Appellant's sentence was improper and agrees that a new
sentencing hearing is in order in this instance .
Appellant was charged with, and pled guilty to murder, a capital offense,
and robbery. Because Appellant had been designated a youthful offender and
transferred to circuit court, he was subject to adult sentencing provisions . KRS
640.010 . It appears that the trial court, in reliance upon KRS 640.030,
sentenced Appellant according to the adult public offender penalty provisions of
KRS 532.030(1), which indicate
[w]hen a person is convicted of a capital offense, he shall have his
punishment fixed at death, or at a term of imprisonment for life
without benefit of probation or parole, or at a term of imprisonment
for life without benefit of probation or parole until he has served a
minimum of twenty-five (25) years of his sentence, or to a sentence
of life, or to a term of not less than twenty (20) years nor more than
fifty (50) years .
(emphasis added) .
However, KRS 640.040 of the juvenile code operates in conjunction with
the adult sentencing provisions of KRS 532 .030 and serves to supplement these
provisions in certain prescribed circumstances. See KRS 640.010(2)(c) . For
youthful offenders convicted of capital offenses, KRS 640.040(1) provides
[n]o youthful offender who has been convicted of a capital offense
who was under the age of sixteen (16) years at the time of the
commission of the offense shall be sentenced to capital
punishment. A youthful offender may be sentenced to capital
punishment if he was sixteen (16) years of age or older at the time
' "'A youthful offender, if he is convicted of, or pleads guilty to, a felony offense in
Circuit Court, shall be subject to the same type of sentencing procedures and duration of
sentence, including probation and conditional discharge, as an adult convicted of a
felony offense."' Gourley v. Commonwealth , 37 S.W.3d 792, 794 (Ky. App. 2001)
(quoting KRS 640.030) (emphasis in original).
3
of the commission of the offense. A youthful offender convicted of a
capital offense regardless of age may be sentenced to a term of
imprisonment appropriate for one who has committed a Class A
felony and may be sentenced to life imprisonment without benefit of
parole for twenty-five (25) years .
This Court recently examined this issue in Shepherd, 251 S .W .3d at 320321, and it is dispositive of the present matter. In Shepherd , we held that the
youthful offender statute governed the sentencing dispositions of the youthful
offender to the extent that KRS 532.030 and KRS 640.040 were in conflict.
Therein, we noted
[a]lthough KRS 532 .030(1) does allow a person convicted of a
capital offense to also be sentenced to life without parole, the trial
court classified Shepherd as a youthful offender pursuant to KRS
640 .010. Thus, the youthful offender chapter governs his
appropriate sentencing considerations . According to KRS 640 .040,
Shepherd's statutorily authorized penalties were twenty to fifty
years, life in prison, or life without parole for twenty-five years.
Since the trial court included the fourth option of life without the
possibility of parole, it erred in the penalty phase jury instructions .
Shepherd , 251 S .W.3d at 9. Thus, because this Court has determined that a
youthful offender may not be sentenced to life without parole, the trial court erred
in so sentencing Appellant .
III.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, Appellant's sentence must be reversed and the case remanded
to the trial court for a new hearing on sentencing with the applicable sentencing
provisions as set forth in KRS 640.040 .
All sitting . All concur.
2 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that imposition of the death penalty
on persons convicted of crimes while under the age of eighteen violates the Eighth
Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Roper v. Simmons , 543
U .S. 551, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (abrogating Stanford v. Kentucky , 492
U .S. 361, 109 S.Ct. 2969, 106 L.Ed.2d 306 (1989)) ; see also Bowling v. Commonwealth ,
224 S.W.3d 577, 580 (Ky. 2006) (for a discussion on Roper).
4
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Michael R. Maloney
175 East Main Street, Suite 300
Lexington, KY 40507-1368
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Jack Conway
Attorney General of Kentucky
Kenneth Wayne Riggs
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
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.
