Opinion
No. 2-087 / 00-1053.
Filed March 13, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, D.J. STOVALL, Judge.
Defendant appeals his convictions of second-degree burglary and first-degree theft following a bench trial. AFFIRMED.
Ronald Baybayan, Des Moines, and Annette Boehlje, Story County Public Defender, Nevada, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kristin Mueller, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Jeff Noble, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
Defendant-appellate Thomas Campbell was found guilty following a bench trial of second-degree burglary and first-degree theft. He contends there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and his constitutional right to confront his witnesses was violated. We affirm.
On November 15, 1999, defendant was charged by a trial information with robbery in the second degree, in violation of Iowa Code sections 711.1 and 711.3; burglary in the second degree, in violation of Iowa Code sections 713.1 and 713.5; and theft in the first degree, in violation of Iowa Code sections 714.1 and 714.2(1). The minutes of testimony filed with the information indicated that certain witnesses would testify defendant LaShauna Bailey stopped her car at the Kum Go convenience store at 2211 University Avenue in Des Moines, Iowa, at about six p.m. on November 7, 1999. She got out of her car leaving the keys in the ignition. Two passengers remained in the car. While Bailey was gone defendant got in the car and tried to start it. Passenger Treasure Brown told defendant not to start the car and then got out of the car. Back seat passenger Ashley Brown tried to take the keys from defendant and he grabbed her arm and pushed her away. Eventually defendant left the car and went in the Kum and Go where he was arrested.
Supplemental minutes indicated that near the same time while investigating the theft of a Chevrolet pickup found in the 1100 block of 17th Street in Des Moines, an officer found a small bullet casing and a magazine belonging to a small caliber pistol with ammunition in it. At the time of his arrest at the Kum and Go convenience store defendant had in his possession a box of 25-caliber ammunition and a set of keys that belonged to the stolen pickup. The owner of the stolen pick up had left the keys in it when he went in to use a restroom in Waterloo, Iowa. When the owner came out the pickup was gone.
An attorney was appointed for defendant. The attorney filed an extensive and specific request for production and a request that the State disclose to defendant its records and to allow him to inspect same. The matter was set for trial.
On November 15, 1999, the defendant signed a wavier of the right to a jury trial and a stipulation that the judge could base his guilt on the minutes of evidence filed in the case. In the stipulation defendant also agreed that he knowingly and voluntarily gave up his right to confront the witnesses against him. The district court on the evidence before it found the defendant guilty of the charges from which appeal is taken.
Defendant contends there was not sufficient evidence to convict him and that he was not given the opportunity to confront the witnesses against him and cross-examine them. The defendant concedes he signed the waiver and stipulation. Defendant also appears to concede that he waived his right to a jury trial in favor of a bench trial.
We first address the defendant's challenge to the fact he was not able to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him. Constitutional claims are reviewed de novo. State v Reinier, 628 N.W.2d 460, 464 (Iowa 2000).
Defendant specially waived the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses in writing. He does not deny that he did. He does not contend there are circumstances which render the waiver invalid. He cites no authority in support of his proposition, nor do we on our review find this issue was raised before the district court. We find no basis to reverse on this issue.
Defendant next contends there is not substantial evidence to support his conviction. When a criminal case is tried to the court, a defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence regardless of whether the defendant moved for judgment of acquittal. State v. Abbas, 561 N.W.2d 72, 74 (Iowa 1997). The State contends, however, that error is not preserved because the defendant still is required to articulate a specific claim for this court to review. The State correctly argues that though defendant stated the issue in a division heading of his brief, he made no argument in his brief supporting the contention and does not direct the court in his brief to the elements of the crimes that are not supported by sufficient evidence, nor does he indicate why the evidence is insufficient. We agree with the State that the absence of any specific argument renders the claim waived. See State v. Greene, 592 N.W.2d 24, 29 (Iowa 1999). We have however reviewed the evidence that came from the minutes of testimony and find there is substantial evidence to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.