NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

OPINION

JONES, Judge.

Following a jury trial, the Appellant, Joseph Paul Davidson, was convicted of the Exploitation of an Adult, over $300.00. The Daviess Circuit Court entered a final judgment and sentence in accordance with the jury's verdict. Davidson maintains on appeal that the trial court should have entered a directed verdict in his favor because the Commonwealth failed to present proof from which the jury could establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Having reviewed the record, we disagree. Accordingly, we find no error and AFFIRM.

I. BACKGROUND

During the relevant time period, Davidson was in a romantic relationship with Stacy Collier, a personal care attendant. Collier worked for Richie James, a quadriplegic. Collier helped James with personal care in his home and regularly ran errands for him. On May 14, 2013, James asked Collier to take care of several errands outside the home, including cashing a check at PNC Bank, purchasing groceries, and obtaining a money order.

Collier departed James's home around 10:45 a.m. Around that same time, she texted Davidson and told him that she would pick him up at her residence. Before picking up Davidson, Collier went to PNC Bank and cashed the check James had given her before she left his house. Collier then picked up Davidson and the two headed towards Kroger grocery store. On the way to Kroger, Davidson called his brother, Clarence, and told him to meet them at Kroger.1

Clarence's girlfriend, Candida Drury, drove Clarence to Kroger to meet Davidson and Collier. The Commonwealth alleges, while talking in the Kroger parking lot, Davidson, Clarence, and Collier hatched a plan to steal the money James gave to Collier for the money order by staging a robbery outside the PNC Bank.

Surveillance video of the Kroger parking lot showed many of the events in question. On the video, Davidson can be seen approaching Drury's car and talking to Clarence. Clarence is seen getting out of Drury's car before she drives away. Clarence and Davidson are then seen talking outside Collier's car while she is presumably inside the Kroger. A bit later, Collier can be seen loading groceries into her car. Collier is then seen leaving the Kroger parking lot by herself. Drury then reappears on the video and picks up Collier and Davidson. Video surveillance from PNC Bank then shows Collier pulling into the bank parking lot by herself. The video shows Clarence approaching Collier's car and then fleeing the scene. Collier is then assisted inside the PNC Bank.

Once inside the PNC Bank, Collier reported that she was robbed in the parking lot. Police were dispatched to the scene. Collier was initially interviewed by police while still at the PNC Bank. She was then transported to the hospital. Detective Jeff Payne interviewed Collier again at the hospital. Detective Payne also set up an interview time for Collier the following day and an interview with Davidson a week a later.

Eventually, after further investigation, charges were filed against Clarence, Davidson, and Collier. Clarence was charged with and pled guilty to Theft, over $500.00; Collier was charged with Exploitation of an Adult, over $300.00 and Falsely Reporting an Incident; and Davidson was charged with Exploitation of an Adult, over $300.00.2 Drury was not charged with any criminal activity.

Davidson was tried before a jury on March 27-28, 2014. Testimony was received from several witnesses, including, Drury. Drury testified she drove Clarence to the Kroger parking lot to meet Davidson on the morning of the "robbery." She testified that when they arrived, Davidson walked up to the passenger side window and handed Clarence some jewelry that belonged to him. Clarence then got out of Drury's car and began walking towards Collier's car with Davidson. Drury testified that Clarence then told her to leave the area so she drove to the back of the Kroger plaza. After a few minutes, Drury saw Clarence and Davidson walking toward her car so she picked them up. She testified that Davidson directed her to go to the street beside Hardees and PNC Bank. She testified that the three of them waited in the car for a few minutes until Davidson got a call or a text from Collier that she was parking at the bank. Clarence then exited Drury's car, taking her cell phone with him. Davidson remained in the car and told Drury to drive to a nearby park. After waiting at the park for a few minutes, Davidson told her that they needed to pick Clarence up at St. Anne Street.

After picking up Clarence, Drury testified that Clarence told her to drop Davidson off at his mother's home. She then testified that she saw Clarence with a white envelope and that it was apparent to her that he was counting money. She indicated that Clarence then handed Davidson the white envelope and stated, "Here is [Collier's] part, give it to her."

After dropping Davidson off, Drury headed to Evansville, Indiana, for work, accompanied by Clarence. Drury admitted that while in Evansville, Clarence purchased for her a new pair of shoes from Shoe Carnival. Drury maintained, however, that she did not participate in planning the set-up and was unaware of it until after the fact.

Following Drury's testimony, Detective Payne was called to testify. Detective Payne testified that there were several inconsistencies that came up almost immediately during his investigation. He testified that the first inconsistency was that Collier was robbed on her way into instead of out of the bank. This suggested to Detective Payne that someone knew Collier was carrying a large sum of money on her. The second inconsistency noted by Detective Payne was that Collier's account did not match up with Davidson's account. Collier told Detective Payne that no one knew she had the money with her. However, Davidson told Detective Payne that he felt bad that he had not accompanied Collier into the bank given the amount of money she had with her. Detective Payne also testified that Davidson told him that he met Collier at the Kroger parking lot that morning to give her gas money. The video, however, shows Collier and Davidson arriving at the Kroger in the same car. Davidson told Detective Payne that Drury and Clarence took him home after the three left Kroger. However, this was contradicted by both Drury and Clarence.

In addition to these inconsistencies, Detective Payne testified that he reviewed the phone records among Collier, Clarence, and Davidson. Detective Payne noted a significant amount of phone traffic among the three on the morning in question. He also noted that this was inconsistent with Davidson's statement that he did not know Clarence's phone number and could only reach him by calling their mother's home.

Throughout his trial, Davidson maintained that he was unaware of the plan developed by Collier and Clarence. Clarence testified that Davidson knew nothing about the staged robbery and that he never spoke to his brother about the plan. Collier also testified that Davidson was unaware of the staged robbery plan.

At the close of the Commonwealth's case, Davidson's attorney moved the trial court for a directed verdict. The trial court denied the motion and the trial proceeded. Davidson's attorney renewed his motion for a directed verdict at the close of the defense's case. This motion was again denied by the trial court. The jury found Davidson guilty of Exploitation of an Adult, over $300.00, and recommended a sentence of ten years. This appeal followed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Commonwealth v. Benham, 816 S.W.2d 186, 187 (Ky. 1991) (citing Commonwealth v. Sawhill, 660 S.W.2d 3 (Ky. 1983)). Further, "there must be evidence of substance, and the trial court is expressly authorized to direct a verdict for the defendant if the prosecution produces no more than a mere scintilla of evidence." Id. at 187-88.

III. ANALYSIS

On appeal, Davidson argues that the evidence presented by the Commonwealth at trial was insufficient to sustain the guilty verdict against him. As such, he maintains that the trial court erred in overruling his motions for a directed verdict. We disagree.

It is undisputed, that a "[c]onviction can be premised on circumstantial evidence of such nature that, based on the whole case, it would not be clearly unreasonable for a jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Graves v. Commonwealth, 17S.W.3d 858, 862 (Ky. 2000). Here, we cannot say that the inferences made by the jury to find Davidson guilty were unfair or unreasonable. The evidence presented revealed that Davidson was present when the fake robbery was allegedly planned, that he spoke to his brother Clarence in the Kroger parking lot for a significant period of time, that he walked to Drury's car with Clarence just prior to the fake robbery, that he directed Drury on where to pick up Clarence after the fake robbery, and finally, that he willingly took Collier's "part" of the money without question. Moreover, the evidence revealed numerous inconsistencies in Davidson's and Collier's stories.

After a review of the record and applicable law, we find that there was "more than a mere scintilla of evidence" from which the jury could have based its verdict. The circumstantial evidence was substantial and damning. The Commonwealth painted a convincing picture that Davidson planned and participated in the hoax from the very beginning. We find no error on the trial court's part in allowing this case to reach the jury.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the March 28, 2014, judgment of the Daviess Circuit Court is affirmed.

ALL CONCUR.