from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David May
(motion to dismiss) and Robert J. Blink (trial), Judges.
Webster appeals his convictions of two drug-related crimes.
D. Dimitrova of Carr & Wright, P.L.C., Des Moines, for
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Zachary Miller, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., Mullins, J., and Scott, S.J.
the evidence presented at trial, a reasonable jury could make
the following factual findings. In November 2015, members of
a narcotics task force executed a search warrant on Glenn
Webster's apartment, where he resided alone. Upon
receiving no response to their knock and announce, police
breached the apartment, discovered no one was home, and began
their search. While the officers were searching, Webster and
a female came into the apartment through the back door.
Officers found $498 in cash and a cell phone on Webster's
person. In the phone, officers found an incoming text message
advising Webster, "its here i have a half an 0z for
you." A locked safe was located in the west bedroom of
the apartment in which Officer Kempnich found, among other
items, four methamphetamine (meth) pipes, several bags of
meth, a digital scale, three syringes, and a Gameboy case
containing several small orange baggies. Officers also found
multiple unhooked surveillance cameras and a taser of sorts.
Scarlett interviewed Webster on the scene. Webster admitted
the items in the safe belonged to him and advised he had
"about a quarter ounce," at least seven grams but
maybe as much as nine grams,  of meth in the safe. A report
from the state crime lab indicates a total of 9.44 grams of
meth was discovered in Webster's possession. Webster
additionally conceded to Scarlett that, for about the last
month, he had been purchasing about a quarter of an ounce of
meth every other day; he would then "break it down"
and sell to others a portion of each quarter ounce in
quarter- or half-gram increments; and he would personally use
a "teener," or about 1.8 grams, of the substance
and Scarlett collectively testified the presence of the pipes
and syringes, and possibly a hookah that was also found, were
consistent with personal use of the meth. Kempnich testified
the presence of the several empty baggies, the multiple
baggies containing meth, and the digital scale were
consistent with distribution of the drug. Kempnich also
testified an average user of meth purchases a gram or less at
a time. Scarlett testified the digital scale, several plastic
baggies, taser, and surveillance cameras are common
possessions of a drug dealer. He additionally testified the
amount of meth found in Webster's residence and the
manner in which it was packaged was inconsistent with only
personal use, and consistent with the sale of the substance.
Scarlett conceded in his testimony on cross-examination that
he did not find evidence consistent with Webster being a
was ultimately charged by trial information with possession
of meth in an amount in excess of five grams and less than
five kilograms with intent to deliver and failure to affix a
drug-tax stamp. The district court denied Webster's
pretrial motion to dismiss and the matter proceeded to trial,
during which the court overruled Webster's motions for
judgment of acquittal. A jury found Webster guilty as
charged. Webster appealed following the imposition
appeal, Webster contends the district court erred in denying
his motions to dismiss and for judgment of acquittal.
challenges the district court's ruling on his motion to
dismiss on a number of grounds. Our review is for correction
of errors at law. State v. Olsen, 848 N.W.2d 363,
366 (Iowa 2014). Webster was charged by trial information in
October 2016. On October 11, Webster waived formal
arraignment and entered a plea of not guilty. He filed his
motion to dismiss on November 29, fifty days after
arraignment. The State resisted the motion, urging, among
other things, the motion was untimely. The district court
denied the motion to dismiss on the merits. We affirm the
denial of the motion on the ground the motion was untimely,
as the motion was filed more than forty days after
arraignment and good cause for the delay was not argued, let
alone established. See DeVoss v. State, 648 N.W.2d
56, 61 (Iowa 2002) ("We have in a number of cases upheld
a district court ruling on a ground other than the one upon
which the district court relied provided the ground
was urged in that court."); see also Iowa Rs.
Crim. P. 2.11(4) ("Motions hereunder . . . shall be
filed . . . no later than 40 days after arraignment."),
2.11(6)(c) (providing grounds for motion to dismiss an
information); State v. Wagner, 410 N.W.2d 207, 212
(Iowa 1987) (finding no attempt to demonstrate good cause for
failure to file within required time amounts to waiver).
Webster contends the court erred in denying his motions for
judgment of acquittal because "the record does not
contain sufficient evidence to support a conviction of
possession of a controlled substance with intent to
deliver." Specifically, he argues the evidence was
insufficient to show he intended to deliver meth in excess of
review of sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges is for
correction of errors at law. State v. Kelso-Christy,
911 N.W.2d 663, 666 (Iowa 2018). In assessing the sufficiency
of the evidence, courts view "the evidence 'in the
light most favorable to the State, including all reasonable
inferences that may be fairly drawn from the
evidence.'" State v. Ortiz, 905 N.W.2d 174,
180 (Iowa 2017) (quoting State v. Huser, 894 N.W.2d
472, 490 (Iowa 2017)). All evidence is considered, not just
that of an inculpatory nature. See Huser, 894 N.W.2d
at 490. "[W]e will uphold a verdict if substantial
evidence supports it." State v. Wickes, 910
N.W.2d 554, 563 (Iowa 2018) (quoting State v.
Ramirez, 895 N.W.2d 884, 890 (Iowa 2017)).
"Evidence is 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. (quoting Ramirez, 895
N.W.2d at 890). . Webster argues the evidence shows the meth
found in his possession was for personal use, rather than for
sale, and therefore no intent to deliver more than five grams
can be shown. The fact that some of the meth in Webster's
possession was for personal use is undisputed. He advised
Scarlett of the same and had paraphernalia consistent with
personal use. However, the evidence is also undisputed that
Webster was involved in the sale of meth. He readily admitted
he purchased around a quarter ounce of meth every other day.
He would then personally use a "teener," or 1.8
grams, per day, while selling the remainder for a profit. In
this particular instance, officers ...