Opinion
No. 1-896 / 00-2042.
Filed March 13, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, SCOTT D. ROSENBERG, Judge.
Ramone Scarpino appeals from his conviction and sentence for solicitation of a felony. AFFIRMED.
Eric K. Parrish of Parrish, Kruidenier, Moss, Dunn, Montgomery, Boles and Gribble, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sharon Hall, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Stephanie L. Cox, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
Ramon Eugene Scarpino appeals from his conviction and sentence for solicitation of a felony in violation of Iowa Code section 705.1 (1999). Scarpino argues the district court erred in failing to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence to support the jury verdict. We affirm.
On June 27, 2000, Des Moines police officers were dispatched to a residence at 1532 21st Street to investigate complaints of drug trafficking. Soon after they arrived, the officers discovered evidence of drug activity and made several arrests. Officers obtained a search warrant for the residence. While officers were executing the warrant inside the house, people began knocking at the door and asking to buy crack cocaine.
Scarpino was one of the individuals who approached the front porch door of the residence. An undercover officer answered the door and asked Scarpino what he wanted. Scarpino told the officer he wanted "a 20." Scarpino was arrested and charged with solicitation in violation of section 705.1. He appealed, contending there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction.
Narcotics agents testified regarding the common methods of packaging and selling crack cocaine. Testimony revealed quantities of crack cocaine for sale are commonly referred to as "20s," "40s," "50s," or "100s," based on the dollar amount and the size of the rock of cocaine to be purchased.
We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for errors at law. State v. Rohm, 609 N.W.2d 504, 509 (Iowa 2000). We uphold a finding of guilt if substantial evidence supports the verdict. Id. Substantial evidence is evidence upon which a rational finder of fact could find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State but consider all of the evidence, not just that which supports the verdict. State v. Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d 679, 682 (Iowa 2000).
To convict Scarpino of solicitation the State was required to prove that: (1) on June 27, 2000, he solicited another to deliver a controlled substance; (2) he intended that the delivery of a controlled substance take place; and (3) his intent must be corroborated by clear and convincing evidence.
Scarpino alleges his actions do not constitute solicitation. We disagree. Solicitation is an offense where "the crime is in the asking." State v. Anderson, 618 N.W.2d 369, 372 (Iowa 2000). Our supreme court held in Anderson that acquiescence following a suggestion of criminal activity does not constitute solicitation. Id. at 373. Here, no one suggested Scarpino participate in criminal activity. The record shows that on the night of Scarpino's arrest, he approached a known drug house and requested "a 20" which, in street parlance, refers to a twenty-dollar rock of crack cocaine.
Based on the testimony adduced at trial and surrounding facts disclosed by other evidence, a jury could reasonably conclude that Scarpino intended to solicit the delivery of a controlled substance. We conclude Scarpino's conviction is supported by substantial evidence and affirm.
AFFIRMED.