Brandon Taylor v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

Opinion

RENDERED: APRIL 21, 2023; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

NO. 2021-CA-1366-MR

BRANDON TAYLOR APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE PATRICIA M. SUMME, JUDGE ACTION NO. 19-CR-01283

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE

OPINION AFFIRMING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; ACREE AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

MCNEILL, JUDGE: On July 6, 2019, Appellant, Brandon Taylor, was arrested

and charged with first-degree assault in Covington, Kentucky. According to the

arresting officer’s report, Taylor stated that the victim had a gun, and that when he

ran away, Taylor shot at him. The victim sustained wounds to his buttocks and

pelvis. The Kenton County Grand Jury indicted Taylor with one count of

first-degree wanton endangerment. Taylor appeared before the Kenton Circuit

Court and entered a guilty plea to that charge. The Commonwealth recommended

a sentence of pretrial diversion for a two-year period. The circuit court diverted

Taylor’s conviction in accordance with the plea agreement. During the sentencing

hearing, the judge cautioned Taylor that he was to have no guns and could not be

around people carrying guns. His diversion agreement also included a requirement

that he not possess a deadly weapon.

On July 13, 2021, Taylor’s parole officer filed a report indicating that

Taylor, a felon, was found to be in possession of a handgun on June 26, 2021. The

report recommended that the circuit court revoke his diversion. Evidence of this

alleged offense included a surveillance video obtained in connection with an

investigation into a bar shooting that occurred while Taylor was present. To be

clear, there is no indication that Taylor was the shooter.

The court held two revocation hearings and ultimately issued an order

finding that Taylor was “a significant risk to the community[,]” and that he “cannot

be appropriately managed in the community” due to his new felony arrest. As a

result, the circuit court revoked Taylor’s diversion and sentenced him to two years’

imprisonment. On September 12, 2022, Taylor was acquitted by a Kenton County

-2- Circuit Court jury on the charges arising from the June 26, 2021 incident. Taylor

appeals to this Court as a matter of right. For the following reasons we affirm.

ANALYSIS

Taylor’s sole issue on appeal is that the trial court erred by revoking

his diversion for failing to comply with KRS1 439.3106(1).

KRS 439.3106(1) requires trial courts to consider whether a probationer’s failure to abide by a condition of supervision constitutes a significant risk to prior victims or the community at large, and whether the probationer cannot be managed in the community before probation may be revoked.

Commonwealth v. Andrews, 448 S.W.3d 773, 780 (Ky. 2014). “Neither KRS

439.3106 nor Andrews require anything more than a finding to this effect

supported by the evidence of record.” McClure v. Commonwealth, 457 S.W.3d

728, 733 (Ky. App. 2015).

A decision to void pretrial diversion applies the same criteria as a

decision to revoke probation. KRS 533.256(2); Richardson v. Commonwealth, 494

S.W.3d 495, 498 (Ky. App. 2015). We review the circuit court’s decision for an

abuse of discretion. Andrews, 448 S.W.3d at 780 (citing Commonwealth v. Lopez,

292 S.W.3d 878 (Ky. 2009)). “Under our abuse of discretion standard of review,

we will disturb a ruling only upon finding that ‘the trial judge’s decision was

1 Kentucky Revised Statutes.

-3- arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.’” Id.

(quoting Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999)). With these

standards in mind, we now address the merits of the present case.

Taylor specifically argues that the circuit court’s order revoking

diversion made insufficient findings, and should therefore be reversed. We

disagree. To reiterate, Taylor previously pled guilty to a felony after having shot

someone. After that, Taylor was eventually acquitted of the subsequent charge of

felony possession of a firearm. However, we need not belabor the distinction

between the legal standards applied to revoking diversion versus that in criminal

trials. Like probation revocation, “[r]evocation of [diversion] does not require

proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Commonwealth’s burden is to prove by

a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated the conditions of his or

her probation.” Helms v. Commonwealth, 475 S.W.3d 637, 641 (Ky. App. 2015)

(citation omitted).

The circuit court in the present case reviewed the evidence, including

the surveillance video and testimony, and ultimately concluded that Taylor was in

possession of a firearm. This is well within the purview of the court. Possessing a

weapon in violation of his diversion agreement and the court’s admonition clearly

indicates that Taylor constitutes a significant risk to the community at large, and

-4- that he cannot be managed in the community. We certainly cannot say that the

circuit court abused its discretion here.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the Kenton Circuit Court’s

order revoking diversion entered on October 14, 2021.

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Jennifer Wade Daniel Cameron Frankfort, Kentucky Attorney General of Kentucky

Perry T. Ryan Assistant Attorney General Frankfort, Kentucky

-5-