Opinion
No. 3-289 / 02-1061.
Filed June 25, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert J. Blink, Judge.
The defendant appeals his convictions and sentences for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and failure to affix a drug tax stamp. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Tricia Johnston, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Cristen Odell, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Gary Kendall, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Hecht and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Ty Patrick appeals his convictions and sentences, following a jury trial, for possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) with intent to deliver, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(b)(7) (2001), and failure to affix a drug tax stamp, in violation of sections 453B.3 and 453B.12. Patrick argues his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file a motion in limine or otherwise object to the introduction of prior bad acts evidence. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings. Des Moines police officer Michael Coughlan observed two people in a grey Chevrolet Celebrity parked in the middle of a roadway. He observed a known drug user approach the vehicle on the passenger side. Once Coughlan's presence was detected, the automobile drove away. Officer Couglan turned on his lights and siren and pulled the vehicle over because the occupants were not wearing seatbelts.
Patrick was identified as the driver. Officer Coughlan observed several open beer bottles in the vehicle, and pulled Patrick out of the vehicle to pat him down for weapons. During the pat down, Officer Coughlan felt what he believed to be a crack pipe in Patrick's back pocket. Patrick was arrested. Officer Coughlan then searched Patrick, and discovered a baggie containing rocks later identified as methamphetamine. Officer Coughlan placed the baggie back into Patrick's pocket.
After taking care of the passenger, Office Coughlan returned to find Patrick eating the baggie containing the rocks. Officer Coughlan ordered Patrick to spit out the contents in his mouth. Patrick had already consumed most of the baggie's contents, but two more bags fell out from his right pant leg. The total weight of the rocks was 15.62 grams.
Patrick was charged with possession with intent to deliver and conspiracy with intent as class "B" felonies, and failure to affix a drug tax stamp. The jury found Patrick guilty of possession with intent to deliver and failure to affix a drug tax stamp. The court sentenced him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment not to exceed twenty-five years for possession, with a mandatory one-third minimum, and a concurrent fifteen-year sentence for failing to affix a drug tax stamp, habitual offender. Patrick has appealed.
II. Scope of Review. Because Patrick raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, our scope of review is de novo. State v. Bergmann, 600 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 1999). A claimant must prove two elements to be successful, (1) counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and (2) prejudice resulted from counsel's errors. State v. McBride, 625 N.W.2d 372, 373 (Iowa Ct.App. 2001). We may affirm on appeal if either element is lacking. Id. We presume trial counsel's conduct falls within a reasonably wide range of professional assistance, and we will not second guess reasonable trial strategy. Burgess v. State, 585 N.W.2d 846, 847 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998). The prejudice prong is satisfied if there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel's alleged errors, the outcome of the trial would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2068, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 698 (1984). While we ordinarily preserve ineffectiveness claims raised on direct appeal for postconviction relief, we may resolve such claims where the record adequately addresses the issues. State v. Martin, 587 N.W.2d 606, 609 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998). We believe this is such a case.
III. Ineffective Assistance. Patrick contends his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file a motion in limine or otherwise file an objection to the introduction into evidence of prior bad acts. He contends the danger of unfair prejudice of the evidence of outstanding warrants, specifically ones charging him with domestic assault and driving while barred, outweighed its probative value. We find no merit to this argument.
We conclude Patrick has failed to show how he was prejudiced by trial counsel's inaction. Patrick does not raise a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. The record reveals Officer Coughlan observed Patrick's vehicle stopped in the middle of a street. He testified he observed a known drug dealer walk up to the passenger side of the vehicle, then walk away when his presence was detected. After stopping Patrick's vehicle, Officer Coughlan patted Patrick down and found a crack pipe and a bag of methamphetamine rocks. Upon his arrest, Patrick began eating the baggie containing the rocks, but two more baggies fell from his pant leg. No drug tax stamp was observed on any of the drugs seized during the search. We conclude that even if trial counsel had objected to the introduction of the warrants, given the State's overwhelming evidence, the outcome of the trial would have been the same. We therefore affirm Patrick's convictions and sentences.