QUANDARIOUS M. TAYLOR APPELLANT
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE PAMELA R. GOODWINE,
JUDGE ACTION NO. 17-CR-00328-002
FOR APPELLANT: Erin Hoffman Yang Frankfort, Kentucky
FOR APPELLEE: Andy Beshear Attorney General of Kentucky Ken
W. Riggs Assistant Attorney General Frankfort, Kentucky
BEFORE: ACREE, COMBS, AND MAZE, JUDGES.
Taylor appeals from a judgment of conviction by the Fayette
Circuit Court. He argues that he was entitled to a directed
verdict on the charge of first-degree robbery and that the
trial court erred by ordering him to pay restitution without
conducting an evidentiary hearing. We find that there was
sufficient evidence to submit the robbery charge to the jury,
but also find that the trial court was required to hold an
evidentiary hearing prior to imposing restitution. Hence, we
affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a restitution
March 28, 2017, a Fayette County grand jury returned
indictments charging brothers Quandarious and Jevontaye
Taylor on charges of first-degree robbery. At trial, the
Commonwealth's primary witness was Chaka Hausley, who is
Quandarious's and Jevontaye's aunt. Chaka testified
that, on the night of the robbery, she and the victim, Myrna
Curtis, got into an argument at Myrna's apartment. After
the argument, Myrna gave Chaka a ride home. Ten to fifteen
minutes after she returned to her apartment, Myrna heard a
knock on her front door. Myrna opened the door and saw Chaka,
who said she left her headphones in the apartment. Myrna left
the screen door locked and went to retrieve the headphones
from her bedroom.
Myrna opened the screen door to give the headphones to Chaka,
two men rushed the door, and one put a gun to Myrna's
forehead. The gunman told Myrna to shut up and backed her up
against a wall. While Myrna was being held at gunpoint, the
second man took Myrna's wallet with about $60 dollars in
it, her cell phone, and a small Bluetooth speaker.
robbers then ran out of the apartment and left the scene.
Chaka started to leave, too, but Myrna followed her and asked
why Chaka had someone rob her. Chaka replied, "What was
I supposed to do, protect you over somebody with a gun?"
At that point Myrna went to a nearby friend's house and
called the police. Chaka left the scene before the police
arrived. Chaka later identified Quandarious and Jevontaye as
the persons who robbed Myrna.
a jury trial, Quandarious and Jevontaye were convicted of
first-degree robbery. In accord with the jury's verdict,
the trial court imposed a sentence of ten years'
imprisonment and also ordered Quandarious and Jevontaye to
pay restitution to Chaka in the amount of $300. This appeal
primarily argues that the trial court erred by denying his
motion for a directed verdict. On appellate review, a trial
court's denial of a motion for directed verdict should
only be reversed "if under the evidence as a whole, it
would be clearly unreasonable for a jury to find
guilt[.]" Commonwealth v. Benham, 816 S.W.2d
186, 187 (Ky. 1991) (citing Commonwealth v. Sawhill,
660 S.W.2d. 3 (Ky. 1983)). In determining whether to grant a
motion for directed verdict, the trial court must consider
the evidence as a whole, presume the Commonwealth's proof
is true, draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
Commonwealth, and leave questions of weight and credibility
to the jury. Id. To sustain a motion for a directed
verdict, the Commonwealth must produce less than a "mere
scintilla of evidence." Id. at 188.
focuses on Myrna's inability to identify the robbers and
the inconsistencies in Chaka's testimony. However, such
matters go merely to the weight and credibility of the
evidence, which is a matter for the jury to decide.
Id. Considering the proof as a whole, there was more
than a scintilla of evidence supporting the jury's
finding that Quandarious was one of the two robbers.
Therefore, the trial court did not err by denying his motion
for a directed verdict.
next argues that the trial court erred by ordering him to pay
$300 in restitution to Myrna. The Kentucky Supreme Court
addressed this issue in Javontaye's appeal and the facts
and reasoning are equally applicable to this appeal.
Taylor concedes this issue was not preserved, and has
requested palpable error review in accordance with