Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Renier v. State

Court of Appeals of Iowa

October 11, 2017

FREDDIE RENIER, Applicant-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee.

         Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Marlita A. Greve, Judge.

         Freddie Renier appeals from the denial of his application for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.

          Stuart G. Hoover of Blair & Fitzsimmons, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant. Freddie Renier, Fort Madison, pro se appellant.

          Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.

          Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Tabor and McDonald, JJ.

          DANILSON, Chief Judge.

         Freddie Renier appeals from the denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR). Having failed to establish sufficient reason or cause for not previously raising the claims, Renier cannot now challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions.

On direct appeal from his convictions for robbery in the first degree and assault while participating in a felony, Renier contended there was insufficient evidence to prove he committed a theft or had the intent to commit a theft, an element of both convictions. See State v. Renier, No. 10-0993, 2012 WL 3590047, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2012). In that decision, this court set out the elements the State was required to prove to establish robbery in the first degree, the third element being that the "defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon." Id. at *2. We observed,
Renier admitted that he brandished a knife in a threatening manner; thus, the third element is not in dispute. Renier also admits to stabbing [the victim]. However, he disputes that he had the specific intent to commit a theft or that he committed the assault to carry out that intention.

Id.

         We also rejected Renier's claim that there was insufficient evidence he had the specific intent to commit a theft or that he committed an assault to carry out that intention. There, we observed:

Renier admits to brandishing a knife and stabbing [the victim]; he merely denies he was participating in the crime of theft at the time of the assault.[1] As we conclude sufficient evidence supports the jury's conclusion that Renier had the specific intent to commit a theft when he dispossessed [the victim] of his necklace, we also conclude sufficient evidence supports the jury determination that Renier is guilty of assault while participating in felony theft in the first degree.

Id. at *3.

         Renier then filed this PCR application. He asserted his convictions for robbery in the first degree and assault while participating in a felony are not supported by sufficient evidence that he was armed with a "dangerous weapon." He contended the evidence does not establish the pocket knife he used to stab the other person involved in the altercation was a "dangerous weapon" per se or that the injury inflicted constituted a "serious injury." In his pro se brief, Renier asserts trial counsel was ineffective because he "neglected to effectively recognize and or argue meritorious issues, and failed to object or file motion to correct erroneous charges; erroneous charging instruments; erroneous jury instructions; ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.