from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Peter B.
Newell, District Associate Judge (motion to dismiss), and
DeDra L. Schroeder (trial), Judge.
defendant appeals his conviction for driving while barred as
a habitual offender. AFFIRMED.
C. Abbott of Abbott Law Office, P.C., Waterloo, for
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J. and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.
Brandhorst appeals his conviction for driving while barred as
a habitual offender, in violation of Iowa Code sections
321.560 and 321.561 (2015). He claims the district court
erred when it failed to dismiss the matter for failure to
prosecute within one year from the date of arraignment, the
district court failed to inform him of his rights associated
with stipulating to his status as a habitual offender, and
there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We
find no error in the district court's decision to deny
dismissal for failure to prosecute within one year of
Brandhorst's arraignment or in the district court's
failure to inform Brandhorst of his rights associated with
the stipulation that he is a habitual offender pursuant to
Iowa Code section 321.555. We also reject Brandhorst's
claims attacking the sufficiency of the evidence. Thus, we
affirm his conviction.
Background Facts and Proceedings
approximately 3:30 a.m. on July 1, 2015, a deputy working
with the Floyd County Sheriff's office was on patrol near
the town of Midway. As he crossed a bridge, the deputy
noticed three individuals-two were fishing and one was on a
bicycle. The deputy approached the three individuals to
inquire about their fishing licenses. As the deputy ran their
information in his patrol car, a vehicle approached and
pulled in behind the patrol car. Once the vehicle's
headlights illuminated the patrol car the vehicle stopped,
reversed, and took off in another direction.
deputy followed the vehicle's taillights or dust from the
gravel road to the top of a nearby hill where the deputy lost
sight of the vehicle. At the top of the hill, the deputy
exited his vehicle and approached a farmhouse property on
foot. He located a vehicle around the backside of the house
where he found Brandhorst sitting in the driver's seat of
a small, single-cab pickup truck. The deputy noticed several
beer cans on the floor of the passenger side and asked
Brandhorst why he tried to dodge the deputy and if he had
permission to be on the property. Brandhorst indicated he
"did not have a driver's license" and did not
know the property owner. Brandhorst proceeded to explain
another individual, "Dale, " drove Brandhorst onto
the property and took off running before the deputy arrived.
deputy placed Brandhorst under arrest after running his
driver's license and determining that Brandhorst's
driving privileges were barred. The trial information charged
Brandhorst with one count of driving while barred as a
habitual offender. At trial, Brandhorst's defense was
that Dale had been driving. A defense witness testified she
was on the way to pick up one of the fishermen when a man
appeared out of the ditch and ran in front of her vehicle
into the other ditch. The jury convicted Brandhorst of
driving while barred, and Brandhorst stipulated his driving
privileges were barred as a habitual offender. Brandhorst
Standard of Review
court's application of procedural rules governing speedy
trial" is reviewed for correction of errors at law.
State v. Miller, 637 N.W.2d 201, 204 (Iowa 2001). We
apply an abuse-of-discretion standard. State v.
Elder, 868 N.W.2d 448, 453 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015).
of evidence claims are reviewed for a correction of errors at
law." State v. Sanford, 814 N.W.2d 611, 615
(Iowa 2012). The jury's verdict will not be disturbed if
it is supported by substantial evidence. Id.
"Evidence is considered substantial if, when viewed in
the light most favorable to the State, it can convince a
rational jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt." Id. As always, ...