State of Iowa v. Ashlie Danielle Rosales ( 2022 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-0853
Filed April 13, 2022
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ASHLIE DANIELLE ROSALES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County, Daniel P.
Vakulskas, District Associate Judge.
The defendant appeals from her conviction of possession of
methamphetamine. AFFIRMED.
Travis M. Visser-Armbrust of TVA Law PLLC, Sheldon, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sharon K. Hall, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.
2
GREER, Judge.
In August 2020, Ashlie Rosales was in the front-passenger seat of a van
that was pulled over for speeding by Plymouth County Sheriff’s Deputy Kyle
Petersen. When Deputy Petersen first approached the vehicle, he found three
individuals inside. Neither the driver, Rosales, nor the passenger in the backseat
had valid driver’s licenses. Deputy Petersen asked the driver to go to his squad
car with him for questioning; at that moment, there was a single can of soda in the
driver-seat cup holder. The van belonged to the daughter of the backseat
passenger.
Deputy Nathan Hoss arrived to assist. He asked the backseat passenger
to go to his squad car and answer some questions; the deputy ultimately received
the backseat passenger’s consent to search the car. Deputy Hoss returned to the
van and began his search while Deputy Petersen spoke with Rosales outside.
During the search, Deputy Hoss found a second can of soda, which had been
placed in the passenger side cup holder after the van was pulled over. When he
looked inside the can, he found a baggie of what appeared to be, and later crime-
lab analysis confirmed to be, methamphetamine floating inside. Under the front-
passenger seat, Deputy Hoss found a glass methamphetamine pipe wrapped in a
bandana and a women’s t-shirt. He also found butane torches in Rosales’s purse,
which his testimony revealed were the lighter of choice for smoking
methamphetamine. When confronted with the methamphetamine, Rosales denied
that it was hers; when asked if her DNA would appear on the soda can, she
admitted it might.
3
Rosales was arrested, and her jury trial occurred in May 2021. She was
charged with possession of methamphetamine, first offense, in violation of Iowa
Code section 124.401(5) (2020). The uncontested jury instructions stated the
prosecution needed to prove that, on the date of her arrest, “the defendant
knowingly or intentionally possessed methamphetamine” and “[t]he defendant
knew that the substance she possessed was methamphetamine.” At the trial, after
the prosecution rested its case, Rosales made an oral motion to dismiss.
Ultimately the case went to the jury, which found Rosales guilty. She now appeals,
challenging whether sufficient evidence existed to support her conviction.
Error Preservation.
Before delving into the merits of Rosales’s claim, we must determine
whether she has preserved error.1 Our rules of error preservation generally require
both that the party raises the issue and that the district court rules on it before we
consider it on appeal. Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002). But,
our supreme court recently pronounced that a motion for judgment of acquittal is
no longer necessary to preserve a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim. State v.
Crawford, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___, 2022 WL 815299, at *9 (Iowa 2022) (“We thus
hold Iowa’s appellate courts can review a defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency
of the evidence raised on direct appeal without regard to whether the defendant
1While the State did not contest error preservation in its brief, we take the issue
up sua sponte. See State v. Young, No. 09-1938, 2011 WL 4579863, at *5 (Iowa
Ct. App. Oct. 5, 2011) (citing Top of Iowa Coop. v. Sime Farms, Inc., 608 N.W.2d
454, 470 (Iowa 2000) (“In view of the range of interests protected by our error
preservation rules, this court will consider on appeal whether error was preserved
despite the opposing party’s omission in not raising this issue at trial or on
appeal.”)).
4
filed a motion for judgment of acquittal.”). “A defendant’s trial and the imposition
of sentence following a guilty verdict are sufficient to preserve error with respect to
any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raised on direct appeal.” Id. So
we proceed to the merits of Rosales’s claim on appeal.
Sufficiency of the Evidence.
We review sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges for correction of errors at
law. State v. Wickes, 910 N.W.2d 554, 563 (Iowa 2018). We “uphold a verdict if
substantial evidence supports it,” id. (citation omitted), and are “highly deferential
to the jury’s verdict.” State v. Jones, 967 N.W.2d 336, 339 (Iowa 2021). “Evidence
is substantial if, ‘when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, it can
convince a rational jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’”
Wickes, 910 N.W.2d at 563 (citation omitted). “Evidence is not insubstantial
merely because we may draw different conclusions from it; the ultimate question
is whether it supports the finding actually made, not whether the evidence would
support a different finding.” Jones, 967 N.W.2d at 339 (citation omitted).
Rosales argues the State failed to prove that she knowingly possessed
methamphetamine. At trial, the State agreed this was not an actual possession
case, but constructive possession. The jury instructions defined constructive
possession as when an individual “has both the power and the intention at a given
time to exercise dominion or control over a thing, either directly or through another
person or persons.” “Constructive possession may be proved by inferences.”
State v. Reed, 875 N.W.2d 693, 705 (Iowa 2016). But proximity alone is insufficient
to support such an inference. State v. Cashen, 666 N.W.2d 566, 572 (Iowa 2003)
(“[A] finding of constructive possession cannot rest on mere proximity.”). Our
5
jurisprudence works to balance competing concerns, as “[c]onvictions for
possession of drugs should be possible under the law, even though the defendant
is not caught ‘red-handed,’ but innocent bystanders in the wrong place at the wrong
time must be protected from a conviction.” Reed, 875 N.W.2d at 708 (citation
omitted).
Our case law lays out several factors to use in determining whether a
defendant possesses contraband in a jointly occupied space:
(1) incriminating statements made by a person; (2) incriminating
actions of the person upon the police’s discovery of a controlled
substance among or near the person’s personal belongings; (3) the
person’s fingerprints on the packages containing the controlled
substance; and (4) any other circumstances linking the person to the
controlled substance.
Id. at 706 (citation omitted). No one factor is dispositive, and the final factor acts
as a catchall for the peculiar facts of the case. Id. at 705–06. And, when the
contraband is found in a vehicle, other factors may be considered such as:
(1) was the contraband in plain view; (2) was it with the person’s
personal effects; (3) was it found on the same side of the car or
immediately next to the person; (4) was the person the owner of the
vehicle; and (5) was there suspicious activity by the person.
See State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185, 194 (Iowa 2008).
Here, several peculiar facts point to Rosales’s possession of the
methamphetamine, particularly when viewed in the light most favorable to the
State. Video showed that the can containing the methamphetamine baggie was
not present when the driver exited the vehicle, but appeared in the passenger-side
cup holder by the time Rosales was asked to step out and Officer Hoss began his
search of the car. The other passenger was seen with nothing in his hands but his
cell phone when the police approached originally; Rosales, on the other hand, had
6
her purse in her lap. The methamphetamine pipe was found beneath her seat,
wrapped in a women’s t-shirt. Her purse contained butane torches, a device
commonly used for smoking methamphetamine. Neither of the other individuals
in the vehicle were found with any drug-related items on their persons or near their
seats. Taken as a whole, Rosales had plenty of time and opportunity to put the
methamphetamine in the can and move the can to the cup holder, plus she had
the closest access to its location. There was drug paraphernalia under Rosales’s
seat and in her purse—all within her reach. See State v. McMullen, 940 N.W.2d
456, 462 (Iowa Ct. App. 2019) (holding “pieces of evidence supporting [a guilty
verdict] are not separate pieces of evidence to be viewed in isolation; they are to
be considered as a whole”). The jury could have inferred that Rosales was the
one who placed the methamphetamine in the can and placed the can in the cup
holder. As substantial evidence supported Rosales’s possession of the
methamphetamine, we affirm her conviction.
AFFIRMED.