State of Iowa v. Levar Robert Turner, Jr. ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-0432
Filed February 22, 2023
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
LEVAR ROBERT TURNER, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Sean W. McPartland,
Judge.
A defendant appeals his conviction, contending there is insufficient
evidence to support a determination that he had the specific intent to cause serious
injury. AFFIRMED.
John J. Bishop, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.
2
SCHUMACHER, Judge.
LeVar Robert Turner Jr. appeals his conviction for willful injury. His sole
claim on appeal is that there is insufficient evidence to prove he acted with the
specific intent to cause serious injury. We find substantial evidence supports the
conviction. Accordingly, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
A rational trier of fact could find the following from the presented record. On
August 19, 2020, Turner was at the home where Ronald Perdomo resided with his
fiancée, who is Turner’s mother, their eight-year-old daughter, and two other family
members. Turner was also residing at the home in August 2020. The home lacked
power because of a recent storm. Perdomo was in his bedroom on the second
floor when Turner and a female friend went upstairs and encountered him. While
Turner’s friend continued upstairs to the third floor, Turner talked to Perdomo.
Perdomo questioned whether it was a good idea for Turner to have company over
because of the condition of the house and the power outage.
Turner and Perdomo dispute the exact content of the full conversation, but
they agreed that it turned into an argument about Turner’s failure to pay rent, the
possibility of Turner moving out, Turner suggesting he would need to be legally
evicted, Perdomo questioning Turner’s masculinity, the possibility of a fight, and
the suggestion that Perdomo might call the police. During the argument, Turner
became angry with Perdomo and balled up his fists. Perdomo then left his
bedroom, walked past Turner, and entered his daughter’s bedroom. Turner
followed Perdomo and struck him in the face with his fist as Perdomo began to
turn. Perdomo testified he does not precisely remember being struck by Turner
3
as he immediately lost consciousness. Turner testified that after he struck
Perdomo the first time, Perdomo fell to the ground gasping and was scrambling to
get to his feet. He then struck Perdomo at least two more times while Perdomo
was on the floor. According to Turner, he struck Perdomo because he felt
threatened. Turner saw that Perdomo was bleeding. Turner gathered some things
and left the scene.
Perdomo awoke in a pool of blood, with his head and torso on his daughter’s
bed and his knees on the floor. Blood was present in many areas of the room.
Police arrived in response to 911 calls soon after Perdomo gained consciousness.
A responding officer testified that upon seeing Perdomo, he observed injuries and
extensive swelling to Perdomo’s face such that he could not see Perdomo’s right
eye. The officer immediately called for an ambulance. The officer testified that
Perdomo was calm and related that he had been in an argument with Turner and
that Turner had struck him. The officer attempted to contact Turner but was unable
to reach him.
Perdomo was taken to a hospital by ambulance and treated in the
emergency room. The treating nurse practitioner testified that Perdomo had
significant trauma to the right side of his face, lacerations to the bridge of his nose
and the left side of his face, and an injury to his right eye. The nurse practitioner
also testified that Perdomo’s injuries were serious and that it was her opinion that
he had been struck multiple times based on her examination. Following the
examination and scan, Perdomo was transferred to a different hospital for
treatment of his eye injury. Because of the severity of the injury, Perdomo’s right
eye was surgically removed.
4
Turner was charged with willful injury by trial information on November 18,
2020, in violation of Iowa Code 708.4(1) (2020). Turner waived his right to a jury
trial on December 7, 2021, and the case proceeded to a bench trial on
December 8. During trial, Perdomo, the responding police officer, the nurse
practitioner, and Turner testified. After the close of the State’s evidence, Turner
moved for a judgment of acquittal, which was denied. After the close of all
evidence, Turner requested the court find him guilty of a lesser-included offense.
The court found Turner guilty as charged. The court sentenced Turner to an
indeterminate prison term not to exceed ten years. Turner now appeals.
II. Standard of Review
We review sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims for correction of errors at law.
State v. Crawford, 972 N.W.2d 189, 202 (Iowa 2022). Under this standard, we are
highly deferential to the verdict of the district court. Id. “In reviewing challenges to
the sufficiency of evidence supporting a guilty verdict, courts consider all of the
record evidence viewed ‘in the light most favorable to the State, including all
reasonable inferences that may be fairly drawn from the evidence.’” State v.
Sanford, 814 N.W.2d 611, 615 (Iowa 2012) (citation omitted). “[W]e will uphold a
verdict if substantial record evidence supports it.” Id. (alteration in original) (citation
omitted). “Evidence is considered substantial if, when viewed in the light most
favorable to the State, it can convince a rational [trier of fact] that the defendant is
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.III. Discussion
Turner contests the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction for willful
injury. To convict Turner, the district court noted it had to find: (1) Turner struck
5
Perdomo in the face; (2) Turner specifically intended to cause a serious injury1 to
Perdomo; and (3) Turner’s acts caused a serious injury to Perdomo. It is
undisputed that the State proved the first and third elements at trial beyond a
reasonable doubt. On appeal, Turner only challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence for the second element, his specific intent to cause a serious injury.
“Specific intent is seldom capable of direct proof.” State v. Ernst, 954
N.W.2d 50, 55 (Iowa 2021) (quoting State v. Walker, 574 N.W.2d 280, 289 (Iowa
1998)). “Therefore, specific intent will often ‘be shown by circumstantial evidence
and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence.’” Id. (quoting Walker, 574
N.W.2d at 289). When deciding the issue of specific intent, the fact finder may,
but is not required to, conclude a person intends the natural results of his or her
actions. State v. Fountain, 786 N.W.2d 260, 264 (Iowa 2010). And the trier of fact
may look to the injuries suffered. See State v. Decklever, 172 N.W.2d 109, 110
(Iowa 1969) (“The extent of the injury, if any, although not in itself determinative of
the intent, may be considered as bearing thereon.”).
There is substantial evidence from which a rational trier of fact could infer
that Turner had the specific intent to seriously injure Perdomo. Turner was visibly
angry during the argument, evident by Turner balling up his fists and repeatedly
asking Perdomo if he wanted to fight. Despite Perdomo trying to exit the room,
1 A “serious injury” is defined in relevant part as:
Bodily injury which does any of the following:
(1) Creates a substantial risk of death.
(2) Causes serious permanent disfigurement.
(3) Causes protracted loss or impairment of the function of
any bodily member or organ.
Iowa Code § 702.18(1)(b).
6
Turner pursued him into another room where he struck Perdomo. The first blow
occurred when Perdomo was facing away from Turner, indicating he was not a
threat. The assault was violent, including blows to Perdomo’s face that caused
Perdomo to lose consciousness. Even after Perdomo lost consciousness, Turner
continued to strike Perdomo at least two more times in the face. And Turner’s
actions caused Perdomo to lose an eye. See Fountain, 786 N.W.2d at 264. Under
our standard of review, “all of the record evidence [is] viewed ‘in the light most
favorable to the State, including all reasonable inferences that may be fairly drawn
from the evidence.’” Sanford, 814 N.W.2d at 615 (citation omitted). Viewed in this
light, sufficient evidence exists in the record to support Turner’s conviction.
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.