Opinion
No. 2-022 / 01-0746
Filed April 10, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Linda R. Reade, Judge.
Defendant appeals from her conviction and sentence for one count of first-degree theft. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Robert Ranschau, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha Boesen, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Jaki Livingston, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vogel and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Christine Sobotka appeals from her conviction and sentence for one count of first-degree theft. She contends there is insufficient evidence to support her conviction and that her trial counsel was ineffective in several respects.
Sobotka managed the day-to-day finances for OLAF Enterprises, which does business as Darwin Designs. When Sobotka received invoices from Darwin Designs vendors, she would pay the bill with a company check. When a product was received COD, Sobotka was authorized to write a check for "cash" or purchase a money order. She would then code each check to the appropriate vendor for bookkeeping purposes, attaching the invoice to the check stubs. However, when Darwin Designs was sued, numerous discrepancies in the company's finances came to light. Sobotka was charged with first-degree theft. A jury convicted her and she was sentenced to a ten-year indeterminate term of imprisonment.
We review Sobotka's claim of insufficient evidence for errors at law. State v. Rohm, 609 N.W.2d 504, 509 (Iowa 2000). We will 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 find substantial evidence supports defendant's conviction. Forty-two checks payable to Sobotka or "cash-Christine Sobotka" were introduced into evidence. Several of these checks did not have invoices attached. Many of the checks were written for amounts in excess of the invoices attached to them. Some of the checks were not coded. Additionally, several checks were written for unauthorized purchases. While Sobotka argues the bookkeeping discrepancies are attributable to Ed Veak, an owner of OLAF Enterprises, it is the province of the jury to sort out the evidence and place credibility where it belongs. State v. Maring, 619 N.W.2d 393, 395 (Iowa 2000). On the record before us, we find the district court properly denied Sobotka's motion for judgment of acquittal.
Sobotka alleges her trial counsel was defective in several respects. She contends counsel was ineffective in failing to move for a new trial, in failing to call certain witnesses, in failing to subpoena checks and financial records, and in failing to keep her fully informed of all developments in her case. We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. State v. McBride, 625 N.W.2d 372, 373 (Iowa Ct.App. 2001). To succeed with a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Sobotka must prove that counsel failed to perform an essential duty and that she was prejudiced by this error. State v. Brooks, 555 N.W.2d 446, 448 (Iowa 1996).
Because we find the jury's verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence, Sobotka did not suffer any prejudice from trial counsel's failure to move for a new trial. As the record on appeal is inadequate to resolve the other claims raised by Sobotka, we preserve them for postconviction relief. State v. Atley, 564 N.W.2d 817, 833 (Iowa 1997).
AFFIRMED.