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.

State v. Frakes

Court of Appeals of Iowa

March 21, 2018

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHRIS AARON FRAKES, Defendant-Appellant.

          Appeal 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 entry), Judges.

         A defendant appeals his convictions by jury trial for possession of methamphetamine, possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, and keeping a drug house.

          Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

          Thomas 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.

          TABOR, JUDGE.

         Chris 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 basis.

         I. Facts and Prior Proceedings

         On 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.

         While 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 drug house.

         Following a pretrial motion to suppress, the case proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found Frakes guilty of possession of methamphetamine, [1] possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, [2] and keeping a drug house.[3] 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.

         II. Analysis

         A. Motion to Suppress

         Frakes 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.

         When a 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 (Iowa 2007).

         On our 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)).

         1. Probable Cause

         In the 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. ...


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.