Robert May v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 2015 SC 000436

On October 13, 2014, Robert James May led police on a high-speed chase in a stolen vehicle, abandoned the car, and fled on foot.
Louise Martin (age ~69) encountered May in her daughter's garage; he attempted to take a van, she removed the keys, and he grabbed her multiple times causing her to fall and sustain injuries (torn shirt, marks, bleeding ear requiring sutures).
Police searched the house, used a police dog, and ultimately captured May after the dog bit him.
May was indicted and a jury convicted him of first-degree burglary (requiring physical injury), receiving stolen property (> $500), first-degree fleeing/evading, and being a first-degree persistent felony offender; acquitted of kidnapping.
The jury recommended a total of 20 years; the trial court imposed 25 years by running one sentence consecutively to the others.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (May)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Whether directed verdict should have been granted on first-degree burglary (physical injury element)	Evidence insufficient to prove May caused Ms. Martin's physical injury; victim could not pinpoint when injury occurred	Evidence (victim testimony, photos, torn earring, sutured ear lobe, marks) sufficiently proved physical injury attributable to May	Denied reversal — evidence sufficed; no directed verdict required
Whether running a sentence consecutively (contrary to jury recommendation) violated Sixth Amendment jury-trial rights	Kentucky sentencing scheme violates Sixth Amendment per Hurst/Ring because judge imposed consecutive sentence over jury recommendation	States may assign to judges the factfinding whether sentences run consecutively; Ice permits judge-made determinations on consecutiveness	No palpable error; consecutive sentencing permissible under Oregon v. Ice; Sixth Amendment not violated

Benham v. Commonwealth, 816 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1991) (standard for reversing denial of directed verdict)
Sawhill v. Commonwealth, 660 S.W.2d 3 (Ky. 1983) (directed verdict precedent)
Lawton v. Commonwealth, 354 S.W.3d 565 (Ky. 2011) (scope of review confined to trial proof and statutory elements)
Walker v. Commonwealth, 349 S.W.3d 307 (Ky. 2011) (preservation and palpable error review for unpreserved constitutional claims)
Jones v. Commonwealth, 319 S.W.3d 295 (Ky. 2010) (palpable error standard applied to unpreserved issues)
Dotson v. Commonwealth, 740 S.W.2d 930 (Ky. 1987) (Kentucky law allowing judges to run sentences consecutively)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (jury must find facts increasing maximum punishment in capital context)
Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) (Sixth Amendment does not prevent states from assigning consecutive-sentence factfinding to judges)