NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

OPINION

COMBS, Judge.

Aaron Asher appeals from a judgment of the Leslie Circuit Court sentencing him to fifteen-years' imprisonment for his convictions of first-degree burglary and theft by unlawful taking. Asher raises a single issue on appeal: whether the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion for directed verdict following presentation of the Commonwealth's case against him. Having reviewed the record and the arguments of counsel, we affirm.

The evidence presented at trial indicates that Aaron Asher unlawfully entered the home of Jan and Herschel Dean Asher on November 1, 2012. He gained entry by breaking the glass panel of a door leading on to an addition of the home. He fled by way of the same door when he was eventually confronted in the home by Herschel. When Herschel later entered the addition, he discovered that Asher had taken five or six of Herschel's guns from his gun cabinet and had stacked them together on the floor.

Asher was indicted by the Leslie County Grand Jury on March 13, 2013. He was tried by a jury and convicted of burglary in the first degree and theft by unlawful taking. On September 3, 2014, he was sentenced, in accordance with the jury's recommendation, to serve fifteen-years' imprisonment. This appeal followed.

Asher contends that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to support his convictions either for first-degree burglary or for theft by unlawful taking. We disagree.

We may reverse the trial court's denial of a motion for directed verdict "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) (emphasis added)). When ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court must assume that the Commonwealth's evidence is true. Benham, 816 S.W.2d at 187. Our review is confined to the proof at trial and the statutory elements of the alleged offense. Lawton v. Commonwealth, 354 S.W.3d 565 (Ky. 2011).

Upon the close of the Commonwealth's case, Asher moved for a directed verdict with respect to the first-degree burglary charge. He maintained that there was no evidence that he was in possession of any of the weapons during the home invasion. The trial court denied the motion. The question on appeal is whether Asher's removal of the loaded weapons from the gun cabinet resulted in his being "armed with a deadly weapon" for purposes of the burglary statute.

Our first-degree burglary statute, Kentucky Revised Statute[s] (KRS) 511.020, provides, in pertinent part as follows:

The relevant portions of KRS 500.080(4)(b) define a "deadly weapon" as "[a]ny weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or other serious physical injury, may be discharged."

Asher argues that he was entitled to a directed verdict on the first-degree burglary charge because the Commonwealth failed to prove that he was armed with a deadly weapon at the time of the commission of the crime. In denying the directed verdict motion, the trial court observed that the trial testimony indicated that Asher had taken possession of a number of loaded weapons by removing them from the gun cabinet where they had been stored and stacking them together on the floor of the house before he was confronted by the homeowner and fled. The trial court concluded that the first-degree burglary statute was plainly applicable under these circumstances.

A person may become "armed with a deadly weapon" for the purposes of first-degree burglary when he enters a dwelling unarmed and subsequently takes possession of a firearm while inside. Hayes v. Commonwealth, 698 S.W.2d 827 (Ky. 1985). The statute does not require that the Commonwealth prove that a gun possessed during the course of a burglary be taken away from the property. See Wilson v. Commonwealth, 438 S.W.3d 345 (Ky. 2014). In this case, the evidence was sufficient to permit the credible inference that Asher accessed the guns (if only briefly) while inside the home and, thus, was armed with a deadly weapon for purposes of first-degree burglary. Consequently, the trial court did not err by denying the motion for directed verdict.

Asher also moved for a directed verdict with respect to the charge of theft by unlawful taking. He maintained that there was no evidence that a theft of the guns was ever actually accomplished. The trial court also denied this motion. The question on appeal is whether Asher unlawfully exercised control over the property while he remained in the house for purposes of the statute defining theft by unlawful taking.

KRS 514.030 provides that a person is guilty of theft by unlawful taking when it is shown that he "takes or exercises control over moveable property of another" with an intent to deprive the owner thereof. Asher argues that he was entitled to a directed verdict on the charge of theft by unlawful taking because the Commonwealth failed to prove that he ever deprived the homeowner of control of his guns. In denying the directed verdict motion, the trial court observed that the trial testimony indicated that Asher had "taken control" of a number of guns by removing them from the gun cabinet where they had been stored and stacking them together on the floor presumably with the intent to retrieve them as he left the premises. The trial court concluded that the theft by unlawful taking had been accomplished before Asher fled the home without the weapons.

Under the provisions of KRS 514.030(1)(a), the actual taking of an item is not required for there to be a completed theft by unlawful taking. Instead, the statute "defines the crime in terms of one who unlawfully takes property or who unlawfully exercises control over property" with the intent to deprive another of that property. Commonwealth v. Day, 599 S.W.2d 166, 168 (Ky. 1980) (emphasis added). Thus, the crime can be committed by two different types of acts. In this case, the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to conclude that Asher unlawfully exercised control of the guns when he removed them from the cabinet where the homeowner had left them and stacked them together for easy collection as he left the premises.

We affirm the judgment and sentence of the Leslie Circuit Court.

ALL CONCUR.