MURRAY – Leslie Lockhart was remanded into custody Monday after she failed to make restitution payments in accordance with her plea agreement. Calloway Circuit Judge Andrea Moore sentenced Lockhart to serve eight years in prison for stealing more than $250,000 from an elderly woman in her care.
Lockhart, 54, of Murray, was arrested in February 2025, accused of taking money from Maria Judy while working as a caregiver and helping with her financial accounts.
After Judy died in December 2024, her daughter and son-in-law discovered 20 forged checks totaling around $178,000, according to the charging documents in her case. Investigators later identified fraudulent transfers from Fidelity and Merrill Lynch accounts and additional forged checks totaling nearly $79,000.
Lockhart was initially charged with 23 counts of second-degree forgery, one count of theft by unlawful taking and one count of knowingly abusing or neglecting an adult; however, the abuse charge was dismissed as part of her plea agreement, which was entered on Feb. 5.
With former Kentucky Supreme Court Chief Justice John Minton serving as mediator, the parties agreed that Lockhart would pay $300,000 in restitution, which was to be paid in two lump-sum payments of $100,000 followed by monthly payments until the balance is paid in full.
Lockhart was required to make the first $100,000 payment by March 6. She was also required to make the second $100,000 payment or list her home for sale by April 6. Monthly payments of $3,000 were to begin on April 20, the day of her sentencing hearing, and continue until the balance is paid in full. In order to be eligible for probation, Lockhart needed to satisfy the first two requirements.
At Monday’s sentencing, Jason Holland, Lockhart’s attorney, gave the opening argument. He told the court that his client had paid approximately $41,500 toward the first $100,000 installment, and her home had been listed for sale.
Holland explained that, at the time of signing the agreement, Lockhart and her husband were under the impression that they would be able to withdraw money from his retirement account in order to make the first payment. However, they later learned that they could not access those funds while he is still employed.
According to Holland, Lockhart immediately put her house on the market upon finding out the retirement funds were unavailable. He advised that the proceeds from the sale of the home would more than cover the $158,500 still owed on the first two installments.
Lockhart has completed the Serenity Recovery program and has a well-paying job at Futrell Farms, Holland said, noting that both her sponsor from Serenity and her employers submitted letters of support and they were present in the courtroom, along with her family.
Citing Lockhart’s lack of prior criminal history, low risk assessment scores and strong family ties to the area, Holland said she checks all of the boxes as a good candidate for probation and asked Judge Moore to probate the eight-year sentence.
He further noted that Assistant Attorney General Richie Kemp, who was appointed special prosecutor in the case, was neutral to imposing the sentence at the time the plea agreement was entered, adding that any opposition to it now is only because the repayment schedule was not followed.
“But that’s an easy fix,” he argued, later adding. “When the house sells, they’ll get $158,500 as opposed to $100,000; that’s the only difference.”
Kemp started his argument clarifying that any neutrality was conditioned upon Lockhart complying with the terms of the agreement.
“We've got excuses for why it wasn't complied with, but the fact is, as we sit here today, they are nearly $60,000 short of what they agreed to have paid to the victims in this case, as of today,” Kemp said, referring to the balance owed on the first $100,000 payment.
Kemp noted that he could have filed a motion to impose the sentence in March for not making the first payment as agreed. He said that he held off because he wanted to give Lockhart the opportunity to comply with the terms of the agreement.
“And here we are,” he added. “She's not complied with the terms.”
Kemp placed a framed photo of Judy on the table and told the court she was dying of breast cancer while the thefts occurred. Noting that Lockhart completed more than 40 separate transactions over an 18-month period, he added, “It wasn't a bad mistake one time, or two times – it was a systematic, well-developed plan to steal money from this woman as she died.”
“Everything that the defense is arguing for you to grant her probation now is contingent on her credibility, and she has none,” Kemp argued. “I think that the defense is asking this court to be very gullible, to accept what she's saying and granting her probation.”
In closing, Kemp said he was never comfortable with the plea agreement because of the potential that Lockhart would not serve any time in prison after stealing, what he called, the largest amount of money taken from an individual he has ever seen in over 20 years of prosecuting cases.
“I've seen bigger thefts for businesses or corporations, but not from an individual," Kemp said. "So, I had a lot of reservations about her not serving time anyway, and then to give her the opportunity to make these financial sacrifices and then to not come through on that… I think justice demands that she gets sentenced to serve."
In rebuttal, Holland argued that it would be to the victims’ advantage for Lockhart to be available for staging and showing the house in order to secure the highest sale price. However, Kemp advised the court that Judy’s family understands and accepts that.
Before making her ruling, Moore told Holland and Kemp that they both did a good job presenting their arguments but what she has to look at is the agreement. Then she read the terms of the restitution payments aloud, directly from the document.
“As per that agreement, then I was going to consider outright probating Ms. Lockhart,” Moore said, “but it doesn’t look like that’s been done. So, for today’s purposes, I am going to go forward and sentence Ms. Lockhart to the agreed upon time (of eight years).”
Moore also informed Holland that she will not consider a motion for shock probation unless the first $100,000 installment is paid in full.
“So, I’ll be looking for that, and I want that done when a shock motion is filed,” she said, adding that, hopefully, as Holland previously suggested, the second $100,000 installment will also be paid by that time.
Motions for shock probation can only be filed 30 to 180 days after sentencing.
Related Coverage:
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here