from the Iowa District Court for Lee (South) County, John G.
Linn (trial and sentencing), John M. Wright (motion to
suppress), Michael J. Schilling (motion in limine), and Mary
Ann Brown (revocation of deferred judgment and judgment
defendant appeals his convictions by jury trial for
possession of methamphetamine, possession of marijuana with
intent to deliver, and keeping a drug house.
C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kyle P. Hanson and Tyler J.
Buller, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and McDonald, JJ.
Frakes believes evidence regarding "Pleasure Time
Rentals", his "sex room" business venture,
improperly prejudiced the jury in his trial for possession of
methamphetamine, possession of marijuana with intent to
deliver, and keeping a drug house. He also argues the search
warrant was deficient and substantial evidence does not
support two of his convictions. Because the search warrant
was based on probable cause, and the law enforcement officer
affiant did not intentionally or recklessly mislead the
court, we reject Frakes's constitutional challenge. We
further find Frakes did not preserve error on his
substantial-evidence objection, but we address his
alternative ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim,
concluding Frakes cannot show he was prejudiced by
counsel's omission. Finally, because the district court
placed appropriate limits on the testimony and exhibits
relating to "Pleasure Time Rentals" and
Frakes's financial matters, and that evidence was more
probative than prejudicial, we decline to reverse on that
Facts and Prior Proceedings
November 6, 2015, law enforcement officers executed a search
warrant at Frakes's home. Officers based the warrant
application on an anonymous tip received three months earlier
and on the reports from a named informant familiar with
Frakes's drug distribution.
searching Frakes's home, officers discovered plastic
baggies, scales, drug paraphernalia, a small quantity of
marijuana, a trace amount of methamphetamine, large amounts
of cash hidden in various places, and a basement filled with
sex toys. Officers interviewed Frakes, who told them he did
not use marijuana but gave it to women in his home before
engaging in sexual activity with them. Frakes also told
officers about a defunct business venture in which he
proposed to rent out a room in his house containing equipment
used for sexual activity. Frakes said he closed the business
six months before being arrested. The State charged Frakes
with possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver,
possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, and keeping a
a pretrial motion to suppress, the case proceeded to a jury
trial. The jury found Frakes guilty of possession of
methamphetamine,  possession of marijuana with intent to
deliver,  and keeping a drug house. The district
court granted Frakes a deferred judgment but after he
violated his probation the court sentenced him to a term not
to exceed five years imprisonment and several fines. Frakes
now appeals his convictions.
Motion to Suppress
contends the district court should have suppressed the
evidence discovered from execution of the search warrant on
his house because 1) the warrant lacked probable cause, and
2) the affiant-officer intentionally or recklessly misled the
court in the warrant application.
motion to suppress involves state or federal constitutional
grounds, our review is de novo. See State v. Baldon,
829 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Iowa 2013) (analyzing Fourth Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 8 of the Iowa
Constitution). We independently evaluate the totality of the
circumstances as demonstrated by the entire record. See
id. We consider both the evidence presented at the
suppression hearing as well as the evidence presented at
trial. See State v. Carter, 696 N.W.2d 31, 36 (Iowa
2005). "[W]e give deference to the factual findings of
the district court due to its opportunity to evaluate the
credibility of the witnesses but are not bound by such
findings." State v. Lane, 726 N.W.2d 371, 377
review of probable cause to issue a search warrant, we
"decide whether the issuing judge had a substantial
basis for concluding probable cause existed." State
v. Gogg, 561 N.W.2d 360, 363 (Iowa 1997). "[W]e do
not independently determine probable cause." State
v. McNeal, 867 N.W.2d 91, 100 (Iowa 2015). Probable
cause exists when "a person of reasonable prudence would
believe a crime was committed on the premises to be searched
or evidence of a crime could be located there."
Gogg, 561 N.W.2d at 363 (quoting State v.
Weir, 414 N.W.2d 327, 330 (Iowa 1987)).
search warrant application, Officer Chad Donaldson of the Lee
County Sheriff's Department advised the court an unknown
"citizen informant" had reported "an ongoing
pattern of short term 'come and go traffic'"
from Frakes's home, which the informant believed was
drug-related activity. ...