State of Iowa v. Noah Anthony Moore ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
    No. 18-0366
    Filed December 19, 2018
    STATE OF IOWA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    vs.
    NOAH ANTHONY MOORE,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, Myron L.
    Gookin, Judge.
    The defendant appeals his conviction for delivery of methamphetamine.
    AFFIRMED.
    R.E. Breckenridge of Breckenridge Law PC, Ottumwa, for appellant.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kyle Hanson and Tyler J. Buller,
    Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
    Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.
    2
    McDONALD, Judge.
    Following a jury trial, Noah Moore was convicted of delivery of
    methamphetamine, five grams or less, in violation of Iowa Code section
    124.401(1)(c)(6) (2016), and sentenced to fifteen years in prison as a habitual
    offender. On appeal, Moore contends the district court failed to properly consider
    his motion for new trial, which asserted, as relevant here, the verdict was contrary
    to the weight of the evidence. Moore concedes the district court applied the correct
    legal standard in ruling on the motion, he just disagrees with the decision.
    The appeal is without merit. Our review is not whether the verdict is contrary
    to the weight of the evidence but only whether the district court abused its
    considerable discretion in denying the motion.         See State v. Shanahan, 
    712 N.W.2d 121
    , 135 (Iowa 2006) (“We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for new
    trial for an abuse of discretion.”); State v. Reeves, 
    670 N.W.2d 199
    , 203 (Iowa
    2003) (“[A]ppellate review is limited to a review of the exercise of discretion by the
    trial court, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight
    of the evidence.”); State v. Ellis, 
    578 N.W.2d 655
    , 659 (Iowa 1998) (stating the
    correct standard is whether the verdict is “contrary to the weight of the evidence”).
    We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s thorough and considered
    ruling. To the extent the defendant raises a separate claim regarding his Fifth
    Amendment rights, we conclude the claim is without merit.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-0366

Filed Date: 12/19/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/19/2018