IMPORTANT NOTICE
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION
THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED."
PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
PRO.MULGATED 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THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE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UNPUBLISHED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 CONS.IDERATION
-BY THE COURT .SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN UNPUBLISHED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 ALO.NG WITH THE
DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO THE .
ACTION.
RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 28, 2017
NOT TO BE PUBLISHEO
2016-sc..:ooo 119·-MR
MICHAEL TAYLOR APPELLANT
ON APPEAL FROM ADAIR CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE JUDY DENISE VANCE, JUDGE
NO. 14-CR-00051 AND NO. 14-CR-00052
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
AFFIRMING
A circuit court jury convicted Michael Taylor of two counts of first-degree
Trafficking in a 1 Controlled Substance and of being a fi:rst-degree Persistent
·Felony Offender, recommending the mrud.mum 5-years' imprisonment on each··
trafficking conviction enh~nced by PFO I status to 20 years' imprisonment on
. .
each count to be served conse·cutively. The trial court sentenced Taylor to 20
years' imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently and rendered a
judgment accordingly. Taylor appeals from that judgment as
. a matter
-
of right,.
raising six issues.I.
1 Ky. Const. § 110(2)(b).
I. ANALYSIS.
A. Stan.dard of Review.
For preserved issues, determining the proper standard of review requires
a determination of the alleged trial court error .. "We review a circuit court's
decision to dismiss [or to deny dismissal ofj an indictment for an abuse of
discretion: "2 Evidentiary rulings are cllso reviewed for abuse of discretion. 3 "The
test for abuse of discr~tion is whether the trial judge's decision was arbitrary,
unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound leg~l principles. "4 When
reviewing a challenge regarding the racial composition of a jury panel, this
Court applies the Supreme Court's test in DUren v. Missouris, as stated by this
Court in Mash v. Commonwealthf'.
For unpreserved issues, thi.s Court will only overturn the trial court's
ruling if "palpable error" exists in that ruling. 7 Palpable error requires a
showing that the alleged error affected the "substantial rights" of a defendant,
where relief may be granted "upon a determination that manifest injustice has
resulted from the error."B To find that "manifest injustice has resulted from the
error," this Court must conclude that the error so seriously affected the '
2Commonwealth v. Grider, 390 S.W.3d 803, 817 (Ky. App. 2012) (citing
Commonwealth v. Baker, 11S.W.3d585, 590 (Ky. App. 2000)).
3 McDaniel v. Commonwealth, 4iS S.W.3d 643, 655 (Ky. 2013); Partin v ..
. Commonwealth, 918 S.W.2d 219, 222 {Ky. 1996).
4 Goodyear Tire & RUbber Co. v. Thompson, 11 S.W.3d 575, 5al (Ky. 2000) ..
s 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979).
6 376 S.W.3d 548, 552 (Ky. 2012).
1 Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr)l0.26.
B Id.
2
fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceeding as .to be "shocking or
jurisprucientially in tolerable. "9
B. Alleged Dis.covery Violations.
Taylor argues that the trial court erred when it denied Taylor's multiple
motions to dismiss the indictment. We review a trial court's rulings onmotions
to dismiss an indictment for abuse of discretion.10 Taylor made these motions
becau~e of the Commonwealth's alleged failure to produce discovery· timely.
According ~o the record, this issue centers on the production of a police report
~
relating to a charge brought by the Commonwealth against the confidential
informant used by the Commonwealth in two con~rolled buys that form the
. .
basis for the charges against Taylor in the case at ha:nd.
Part of Taylor's defense included. impeaching the credibilify of this
confidential informant. Taylor began making discovery motions for the
production of exculpatory information on January 5, 2015. On November 17,.
2015, Taylor argued that by checking the court records, he became aware of a
_criminal charge brought against
.
the confidential informant on September 3,
.
2015, the existence of which the Commonwealth had failed to inform Taylor.
Additionally, Taylor averred that the g~and ju11'. disJ;Ilissed the criminal charge
.against the informant, and Taylor argued that the dismissal could have
occurred because of the Commonwealth's favorable treatment of the
confidential informant to reward her service to the Commonwealth. Taylor
9 Martin v. Commonwealth, 207 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Ky. 2006).
·10 Grider, 39Michael Taylor v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Combined Opinion