State of Iowa v. Calvonta Ibrion Stallings ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-1641
Filed December 20, 2023
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CALVONTA IBRION STALLINGS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Henry W. Latham II,
Judge.
Calvonta Stallings appeals his convictions for first-degree robbery.
AFFIRMED.
Raya Dimitrova of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Joshua A. Duden, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Bower, C.J., Ahlers, J., and Danilson, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2023).
2
DANILSON, Senior Judge.
A jury convicted Calvonta Stallings of two counts of first-degree robbery for
stealing women’s handbags at gunpoint on two separate occasions. Stallings
appeals, stating that his convictions are not supported by sufficient evidence. But
he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in name only. In substance, Stallings
brings evidentiary challenges. Specifically, he challenges the admissibility of photo
lineups, a witness’s out-of-court identification of him using the lineup photos, and
another witness’s in-court identification of him as her assailant.
However, we cannot consider the merits of any of Stallings’s appellate
claims because he failed to preserve error on any claim. Stallings never filed a
motion to suppress the photo lineups; nor did he object to the admission of the
photo lineup at trial or the out-of-court and in-court identifications of him. Because
Stallings failed to raise his claims in the district court, the district court never had
the opportunity to rule on his claims and we have nothing to review. See State v.
Bynum, 937 N.W.2d 319, 324 (Iowa 2020). With nothing to review, we cannot
reach the merits of Stallings claims, constitutional or otherwise. See id. And to the
extent that Stallings does challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, he has waived
that claim by failing to provide any supporting appellate argument or authority. See
Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3); State v. Vaugh, 859 N.W.2d 492, 503 (Iowa 2015).
Because none of Stallings’s claims are properly before us, we affirm without
further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(e).
AFFIRMED.