State of Iowa v. Darius Albertez Ramantez Wright ( 2019 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1639
Filed March 6, 2019
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
DARIUS ALBERTEZ RAMANTEZ WRIGHT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Patrick H. Tott,
Judge.
The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his
convictions for robbery in the first degree and willful injury. AFFIRMED.
Rees Conrad Douglas, Sioux City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Blane, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2019).
2
POTTERFIELD, Presiding Judge.
Darius Wright appeals his convictions for robbery in the first degree and
willful injury. He argues neither conviction is supported by substantial evidence.1
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
In February 2017, Wright was charged with one count each of attempted
murder, willful injury, intimidation with a dangerous weapon, and robbery in the first
degree. All four counts involved allegations stemming from the night of February
10, 2017. Wright waived his right to a trial by jury, and the court heard the evidence
at a bench trial in April 2017.
At trial, N.W.2 testified that on the night of February 10, he and two of his
friends—K. R. and G.B.—walked south from his home several blocks to a local
gas station. The three entered the gas station at approximately 10:41 p.m. While
there, N.W. purchased two Dr. Peppers, a package of Sour Patch Kids, and a bag
of Flaming Hot Cheetos.3
On the return walk to N.W.’s home, N.W., K.R., and G.B. encountered a
man that each identified as Wright at trial. Wright changed directions and began
walking with the group, repeatedly asking N.W. what he was carrying in his
1
Wright also filed a supplemental pro se brief. Insofar as he raises an equal protection
claim, that issue was not raised before the district court and is not properly preserved for
our review. See Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 862 (Iowa 2012) (“It is a
fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and
decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.” (citation omitted)).
Additionally, to the extent we otherwise understand Wright’s pro se claims to involve the
sufficiency of the evidence, we consider them in conjunction with the claims made by
Wright’s appellate attorney.
2
A number of the individuals involved in the events on the night of February 10 were
minors. We refer to them by their initials only. See State v. Tyler, 873 N.W.2d 741, 745
n.2 (Iowa 2016).
3
We understand this product to be “Flamin’ Hot Cheetos,” but it is in our record as
“Flaming Hot Cheetos.”
3
pockets, to which N.W. told him, “None of your business.” At some point, Wright
grabbed N.W.’s arm and started throwing punches at him. N.W. dropped the gas
station bag with the snacks and tried to defend himself. Wright then pulled what
N.W., K.R., G.B. each testified was a gun from behind his back, pointed it at N.W.,
and told him to “[g]ive me what you got.” N.W. threw his cell phone toward Wright,
and N.W., K.R., and G.B. fled to N.W.’s home. Neither N.W. nor his friends picked
up the gas station bag before they left.
At 10:48, Wright entered the gas station carrying two Dr. Peppers. He
asked the clerk for a bag for the sodas, which he was given, and then left the store.
As N.W., K.R., and G.B. testified, and as was captured by the surveillance
cameras, Wright wore a blue, long-sleeve jacket or sweatshirt.
When N.W., K.R., and G.B. reached N.W.’s home, they reported to N.W.’s
older brother, Alan, what had occurred. Alan and N.W. decided to try and get
N.W.’s phone from Wright; they armed themselves with a BB gun and two knives.
The four, including K.R. and G.B. then began walking from N.W.’s home toward
the area they had encountered Wright.
As they neared the area, Wright—who was standing on the porch of a
corner home a few blocks from the gas station—yelled, “Hey you,” to N.W. N.W.
and Alan then approached the porch while K.R. and G.B. stayed on the other side
of the street. N.W. and Wright argued about the fact that Wright had taken N.W.’s
phone and whether he was going to return it. According to both N.W. and Alan,
during the argument, Wright kept his hand behind his back. Alan testified he could
see that Wright was holding on to the handle of a gun but that he never pulled it
out or pointed it at anyone during that time. Eventually, an older man who was
4
also on the porch told Wright to give N.W. his phone back, and Wright did so. The
older man then walked away from the area. N.W. continued to argue with Wright
about what had happened to his snacks and wanting them back. Wright went to
the door of the home and yelled something. Four or five guys exited the house,
and N.W. and Alan began running towards the gas station. At least three of the
guys chased them to the store. Another one or two started chasing K.R. and G.B.
the other direction.
At 11:17, N.W. and Alan entered the gas station and asked the clerk to call
911. Wright and two friends, Donte Drappeaux and Tykell Robinson, entered the
store about the same time. The store clerk tried to keep the two groups separate
while Wright and his friends continued to attempt to reach N.W. and Alan. At some
point, Wright, Donte, and Tykell exited the store. At 11:22, Tykell and Donte
returned without Wright. According to the testimony of the gas station clerk, Wright
had left the area by the time Tykell and Donte came back into the store. The first
police officer arrived at the scene about one minute later.
Around the same time, Skyla Wabasha, Eric Silvas, and A.C.-M. were
walking to the gas station. On the way they encountered a girl and a boy—
presumably K.R. and G.B.4—who reported their mutual friend had been robbed of
his phone. After imparting the information, the boy and girl walked away, and
Skyla, Eric, and A.C.-M continued toward the gas station.
4
The district court concluded the girl and boy were K.R. and G.B.; neither of them testified
about meeting or sharing information with anyone on their walk back to N.W.’s home, and
none of the other witnesses named them in their testimony.
5
The three walked down the alley that passed directly behind the corner
home where Wright had been standing when he argued with N.W. and Alan. As
they approached the corner home, they saw a man running toward them in the
alley, who then turned toward the corner home and disappeared from their view.
When they got near the corner home, Eric and A.C.-M. saw a man on the porch of
the corner home and approached it. The man was wearing a blue jacket and
matched the description of Wright. At trial, neither A.C.-M, Eric, nor Skyla
specifically identified Wright as the man on the porch. A.C.-M. shouted at the man,
asking if he had taken his friend’s phone. According to Eric’s testimony, the man
on the porch got defensive and “a little mad at [A.C.-M.] trying to be a hero”; during
the interaction, the man “had, like, something on his back or whatnot. He had his
hand behind his back the whole time.” Almost immediately after A.C.-M shouted
at the man, the man on the porch fired four shots in rapid succession. Two of the
shots hit A.C.-M.—one in his hip and the other in the chest or shoulder area. Eric
testified he did not see the man on the porch pull out a gun, but he saw the man
on the porch pointing it A.C.-M. and saw “sparks or whatever a gun does” when he
heard the first gunshot.
A.C.-M., Skyla, and Eric fled to the gas station, where police had already
gathered based on the clerk’s 911 call.
Based on a call reporting shots fired in the area—at approximately 11:30
p.m.—police officers were dispatched to the area near the corner home. Once
they were in the area, a neighbor came outside and told the officers he heard
arguing and gunshots “directly to the south part of the residence” of the corner
home—where the porch is located. The officers searched the area and located
6
two shell casings from a .22. One officer saw movement in an upstairs window;
they tried to get any occupants of the home to come out. A number of hours later,
during which the officers kept a perimeter around the home and the SWAT team
arrived, Wright and Willie Williams exited the house. At the time he left the house,
Wright was wearing a gray jacket. No one else was in the home.
During their subsequent search of the house pursuant to a search warrant,
officers located two Dr. Peppers. One of the Dr. Peppers was open in a bedroom.
In the closet of that bedroom, officers found hidden under a number of pillows the
blue jacket Wright was wearing in the gas station. Officers also found a bag of
Flaming Hot Cheetos—the only food in the kitchen cupboard—and a package of
Sour Patch Kids in a bag from the local gas station.
Police interviewed Wright after he exited the home in the early morning
hours of February 11. During the interview, Wright lied to the officers, telling them
he had not been at the local gas station since the previous morning.
At trial, Wright testified in his own defense. While testifying, he was asked
by the State why he switched from wearing his blue jacket to his gray jacket. He
said there was “no specific” reason why he changed his clothes and maintained
he did not place the blue jacket under the pillows in the closet.
No other blue jackets or sweatshirts were located in the home during the
execution of the search warrant.
Following the bench trial, the court pronounced judgment. The court
acquitted Wright of attempted murder, finding the State had not established Wright
had the specific intent to cause the death of A.C.-M. when he fired the gun at him.
But the court found Wright guilty of the lesser-included offense of assault with
7
intent to commit serious injury. The court also acquitted Wright of intimidation with
a dangerous weapon. Wright was found guilty of willful injury and robbery in the
first degree. The court determined the conviction for the lesser-included offense
of assault with intent to commit serious injury merged with the conviction for willful
injury.
Wright was sentenced to a term of incarceration not to exceed ten years for
the willful-injury conviction and twenty-five years for the robbery conviction. The
court ordered Wright to serve the two sentences consecutively.
Wright appeals.
II. Standard of Review.
We review claims of insufficient evidence for correction of errors at law.
State v. Romer, 832 N.W.2d 169, 174 (Iowa 2013).
III. Discussion.
Wright challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions.
When a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim is made on appeal from a criminal bench
trial, error preservation is no barrier. State v. Howse, 875 N.W.2d 684, 688 (Iowa
2016). This is because “the court is the fact finder and its findings of guilt
necessarily includes a finding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a
conviction.” State v. Abbas, 561 N.W.2d 72, 74 (Iowa 1997).
In reviewing the district court’s finding of guilt, “we view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the State.” Id. “In determining if there was substantial
evidence, we consider all of the evidence in the record, not just the evidence
supporting a finding of guilt.” Id. This includes making “legitimate inferences and
presumptions that may reasonably be deduced from the evidence in the record.”
8
State v. Armstrong, 787 N.W.2d 472, 475 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010). It is the State’s
burden to prove every element of each of the crimes with which Wright is charged.
See id. And “[t]he evidence must raise a fair inference of guilt and do more than
create speculation, suspicion, or conjecture.” Id. (citation omitted).
A. Robbery in the First Degree.
The district court defined the elements of robbery in the first degree as:
1. On or about the 10th day of February, 2017, [Wright] had
the specific intent to commit a theft.
2. In carrying out his intention or to assist him in escaping from
the scene, with or without the stolen property, [Wright]: a) committed
an assault on [N.W.] and/or b) aided and abetted Tykell Robinson
who committed an assault on [G.B.].
3. The defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon.[5]
Wright challenges only the third element. He maintains there is no evidence in the
record to support the finding that the “gun” that N.W., K.R., and G.B. testified he
pulled on N.W. was an actual working firearm, arguing it could have been a toy
meant to look like a working gun.
In State v. Dean, No. 12-1876, 2013 WL 6118656, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov.
20, 2013), a panel of our court was asked to decide whether substantial evidence
supported the defendant’s convictions for intimidation with a dangerous weapon
and for being a felon in possession of a firearm when “there was no physical
evidence he had a ‘real gun,’ as opposed to a ‘fake gun.’” Our court found the
evidence substantial because there was “circumstantial and contextual evidence”
5
The court relied upon Iowa Criminal Jury Instruction 200.21 for the definition of
dangerous weapon, which it defined as follows:
A “dangerous weapon” is any device or instrument designed
primarily for use in inflicting death or injury, and when used in its designed
manner is capable of inflicting death. It is also any sort of instrument or
device actually used in such a way as to indicate the user intended to inflict
death or serious injury, and when so used is capable of inflicting death.
9
the defendant possessed a functional gun. Dean, 2013 WL 6118656, at *3. We
included as part of that evidence the facts that the defendant engaged in a fight
with people and then made a point to retrieve the weapon. Id. Additionally, like
here, the witnesses in Dean testified they saw the defendant pull out a gun and
aim it at a person. See id.Because Wright, while robbing N.W., brandished the weapon as if it were
real, it appeared to the witnesses who testified about it that it was real, and there
is no evidence in the record to suggest otherwise, substantial evidence supports
Wright’s conviction of robbery in the first degree. See State v. Allen, 343 N.W.2d
893, 897 (N.C. 1986) (“In an armed robbery case, the jury may conclude that the
weapon is what it appears to the victim in the absence of any evidence to the
contrary.”); see also People v. Davis, 26 N.E.3d 932, 935 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015) (“Both
the supreme court and this court have consistently held that eyewitness testimony
that the offender was armed with a gun, combined with circumstances under which
the witness was able to see the weapon, is sufficient to allow a reasonable
inference that the weapon was a real gun.”).
B. Willful Injury.
The district court defined the elements of willful injury as:
1. On or about the 10th day of February, 2017, [Wright] shot
[A.C.-M.] in the chest and hip/buttocks.
2. [Wright] specifically intended to cause a serious injury to
[A.C.-M.]
3. The defendant caused a serious injury to [A.C.-M.][6]
6
Before trial, Wright stipulated that A.C.-M. suffered a serious injury as a result of being
shot on February 10.
10
Wright challenges the court’s determination that the State proved beyond a
reasonable doubt that he was the individual who shot A.C.-M. He relies upon the
fact that neither Eric, Skyla, nor A.C.-M. identified Wright as the shooter in open
court. Additionally, he notes that while surveillance video and police testimony
make it clear Tykell and Donte were not in the area of the corner home at the time
of the shooting, the “older man” who had been on the porch during the
confrontation between N.W. and Wright and one or two of the “four or five guys”
who came out of the house at Wright’s call were not accounted for.
We agree with the district court that substantial evidence supports the
determination Wright was the shooter of A.C.-M. N.W., K.R., and G.B. testified
Wright was wearing a blue jacket and carrying a gun at his back, presumably in
his waistband, before he pulled out the gun and robbed N.W. Wright conceded in
his testimony that the blue jacket recovered by police was his and that he had worn
it into the gas station on the night in question. Before the police arrived, at 11:23
p.m., Wright had left the store. Around that time, A.C.-M., Skyla, and Eric were
told that a kid had been robbed for his cell phone in the neighborhood. As they
walked toward the corner house, a man in a blue jacket who matches Wright’s
description came running up the alley from the direction of the gas station. The
guy turned toward the corner home, and then A.C.-M. and Eric approached him
when he was on the porch of the home. After A.C.-M. asked him if he had taken
his friend’s phone, the man became defensive, retrieved a firearm from behind his
back, and fired four shots.
Police arrived at the home shortly thereafter, and only Wright and Willie
were inside. The men refused to come out for a number of hours. When Wright
11
finally did, he had changed into a gray jacket. Officers located the blue jacket—
the only one in the home—hidden in a closet under a pile of pillows.
Although A.C.-M., Skyla, and Eric were unable to positively identify Wright
in court, the identifying information they were able to provide, in addition to the
circumstantial evidence, supports a finding Wright was the shooter. See State v.
Poyner, 306 N.W.2d 716, 718 (Iowa 1981) (“[C]ircumstantial evidence is just as
probative as direct.”). The man, matching the description of Wright and what
Wright was known to be wearing only a few minutes earlier, came running from the
direction of the gas station. According to Eric’s testimony, the kids who reported
the robbery of their friend were still with them in the alley at that time and they
pointed at the running man and said, “That’s him right there.”7 The man ran to the
corner home and was standing on the porch when A.C.-M. approached him and
asked if he had stolen the phone of A.C.-M.’s friend. The man became defensive
and retrieved a firearm from behind his back—the same place Wright had his gun
before the altercation with N.W. While there may have been other people nearby
at the time of the shooting, Eric testified there was only one person on the porch
at the time of the shooting, and that was the man who matches Wright’s description
and was wearing the blue jacket.
7
Eric testified he was unable to say whether the man he saw running in the alley who the
kids pointed out to him was the same man he saw stand on the porch and ultimately shoot
A.C.-M. But Skyla testified the man who was running who matched Wright’s description
ran to the corner home and A.C.-M.’s testimony implied it was the same man in the
alleyway as on the porch.
12
IV. Conclusion.
Because substantial evidence supports both of Wright’s convictions, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED