State of Iowa v. Ceeron Tearrence Williams ( 2021 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20-1466
Filed November 23, 2021
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CEERON TEARRENCE WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert,
Judge.
Ceeron Williams challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
criminal convictions. AFFIRMED.
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.
2
MULLINS, Presiding Judge.
Ceeron Williams challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
convictions of assault with intent to inflict serious injury, intimidation with a
dangerous weapon with intent to injure or provoke, and willful injury causing
serious injury.1 He argues the evidence was insufficient to prove he was the
shooter in the incident resulting in his convictions, highlighting the impairment of
the witnesses to the crime and the alleged depletion of their recollections over the
passage of time.
Challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are reviewed for corrections
of errors at law. State v. Albright, 925 N.W.2d 144, 150 (Iowa 2019). The court
views “the evidence ‘in the light most favorable to the State, including all
reasonable inferences that may be fairly drawn from the evidence.’” State v. Ortiz,
905 N.W.2d 174, 180 (Iowa 2017) (quoting State v. Huser, 894 N.W.2d 472, 490
(Iowa 2017)). All evidence is considered, not just that of an inculpatory nature.
See Huser, 894 N.W.2d at 490. “[W]e will uphold a verdict if substantial evidence
supports it.” State v. Wickes, 910 N.W.2d 554, 563 (Iowa 2018) (quoting State v.
Ramirez, 895 N.W.2d 884, 890 (Iowa 2017)). “Evidence is substantial if, ‘when
viewed in the light most favorable to the State, it can convince a rational [fact finder]
that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id. (quoting Ramirez,
895 N.W.2d at 890). Evidence is not rendered insubstantial merely because it
might support a different conclusion; the only question is whether the evidence
supports the finding actually made. See Brokaw v. Winfield-Mt. Union Cmty. Sch.
1 The district court merged count one into count three.
3
Dist., 788 N.W.2d 386, 393 (Iowa 2010). In considering a sufficiency-of-the-
evidence challenge, “[i]t is not the province of the court . . . to resolve conflicts in
the evidence, to pass upon the credibility of witnesses, to determine the plausibility
of explanations, or to weigh the evidence; such matters are for the [fact finder].”
State v. Musser, 721 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Iowa 2006) (quoting State v. Williams, 695
N.W.2d 23, 28 (Iowa 2005)).
On our review, we agree with the State that the video and investigatory
evidence, together with eyewitness testimony, when viewed in the light most
favorable to the State, as it must be, was sufficient to allow a rational jury to
conclude Williams was the culprit. We affirm without further opinion pursuant to
Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(a), (b), (c), and (e).
AFFIRMED.