State of Iowa v. Jamodd Amaul Sallis ( 2021 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-1331
Filed January 21, 2021
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JAMODD AMAUL SALLIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David P.
Odekirk, Judge.
Following remand, Jamodd Sallis appeals the denial of his motion for new
trial on charges of possession of a firearm by a felon and carrying weapons.
AFFIRMED.
Erin M. Carr of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Tyler J. Buller, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.
2
DOYLE, Presiding Judge.
A jury found Jamodd Sallis guilty of possession of a firearm by a felon and
carrying weapons. On direct appeal, this court determined sufficient evidence
supported the possession conviction. State v. Sallis, No. 17-1842, 2019 WL
325019, at *2-3 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2019). However, we vacated the denial of
Sallis’s motion for new trial and remanded to the district court to reconsider the
motion under the weight-of-the-evidence standard. Id. at *3-4. On remand, the
district court determined the verdict is not contrary to the weight of the evidence
and denied the motion for new trial.
Sallis appeals the denial of his motion for new trial. We review rulings on
motions for new trial for abuse of discretion. See State v. Shanahan, 712 N.W.2d
121, 135 (Iowa 2006). Our “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. Reeves, 670 N.W.2d 199, 203 (Iowa
2003). Because a motion for new trial alleging the verdict is against the weight of
the evidence concedes sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict, a motion
for new trial should be granted only in extraordinary cases when “the evidence
preponderates heavily against the verdict rendered.” State v. Ary, 877 N.W.2d
686, 706 (Iowa 2016).
The district court properly exercised its discretion in denying Sallis’s motion
for new trial. At a hearing following remand, the district court noted that three
witnesses testified that they observed Sallis with a gun. The court found these
witnesses’ observations more credible than the testimony of defense witnesses
who denied seeing Sallis with a gun. The court also noted that the “defense
3
witnesses were not personally present at all the relevant times” and their testimony
did not directly contradict the specific testimony the court found most credible. For
those reasons, the court concluded that the evidence did not weigh heavily against
the verdict and “a greater amount of the credible evidence supports the verdict.”
Although Sallis disputes the district court’s findings, he fails to show any abuse of
discretion. We therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED.