State of Iowa v. Noah Anthony Moore

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.