from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Joseph M.
Moothart (suppression) and James D. Coil (trial), District
defendant appeals following his conviction contending the
court should have granted his motion to suppress, there is
insufficient evidence to support his conviction, and his
counsel was ineffective. AFFIRMED.
M. White of Jane White Law Office, Des Moines, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., Tabor, J., and Scott, S.J.
Coleman was convicted following a jury trial of operating
while intoxicated and possession of marijuana. He claims the
court should have granted his motion to suppress evidence
because the officer who initiated the traffic stop did not
have probable cause to justify the stop. He asserts there was
insufficient evidence to support the jury's guilty
verdict on possession of marijuana. He also claims his
counsel was ineffective in failing to subpoena a necessary
defense witness or request a continuance to secure the
presence of the witness. We affirm his conviction.
Scope and Standard of Review.
review of the district court's denial of Coleman's
motion to suppress is de novo. See State v. Ruhs,
885 N.W.2d 822, 825 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016). We consider the
entire record, and "[w]e give deference to the district
court's fact findings due to its opportunity to assess
the credibility of witnesses, but we are not bound by those
findings." Id. (citation omitted). We also
review de novo his claim that counsel was ineffective.
See State v. Schlitter, 881 N.W.2d 380, 388 (Iowa
2016). Our review of the sufficiency of the evidence is for
the correction of errors at law. Id.
Motion to Suppress.
contends the officer who initiated the stop of his vehicle
did not have probable cause to justify the stop. Thus, he
contends the court should have granted his motion to suppress
evidence admitted at trial indicates Sergeant Rob Camarata was
conducting a traffic stop of another vehicle on March 29,
2014, at about 2:45 a.m., when he observed a silver Chevrolet
Blazer traveling at a high rate of speed-he estimated at
seventy miles per hour. As it passed him, it nearly collided
with his police vehicle. He radioed to other officers a
description of the vehicle and its direction. Officer Tyler
Brownell heard that communication and observed a silver
Blazer pass his location. After confirming with Sergeant
Camarata the description of the vehicle, Officer Brownell
pursued the vehicle and was able to determine by using his
vehicle's radar system that the Blazer was going
fifty-three miles per hour in a forty-five mile-per-hour
zone. Officer Brownell radioed the speed and location
information to other officers in area. Officer Josh Wessels
heard that communication, located the vehicle, and initiated
a traffic stop. Coleman was the driver of the Blazer.
denying Coleman's motion to suppress, the district court
[T]he investigatory stop of [Coleman's] vehicle by
Officer Wessels was based on specific and articulable facts
to reasonably believe that [Coleman] was exceeding the speed
limit based on the report from [Sergeant] Camarata and
Officer Brownell's radar reading of [fifty-three] miles
per hour in a [forty-five] mile-per-hour zone. Officer
Wessels could rely on ...