from the Iowa District Court for Davis County, Lucy J. Gamon,
appeals his convictions for ongoing criminal conduct and two
counts of second-degree theft.
C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Ashley Stewart,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.
Wulf appeals his convictions for ongoing criminal conduct and
two counts of second-degree theft. We find there is
sufficient evidence in the record to support Wulf's
convictions. Wulf did not preserve error on his hearsay
claims. We determine Wulf has not shown he received
ineffective assistance on his claims defense counsel should
have further challenged the sufficiency of the evidence or
objected to alleged hearsay evidence. We preserve for
possible postconviction relief two other claims of
ineffective assistance. We affirm Wulf's convictions.
Background Facts & Proceedings
owned and operated Whitetail Ridge Outfitters, LLC (WRO),
which provided guided hunts for hunters. Out-of-state hunters
may obtain a hunting license in Iowa. See Iowa Code
§ 483A.8(3) (2017). However, many out-of-state hunters
do not have access to land in Iowa where they can hunt. A
hunter may hire an outfitter or guide, who has obtained
permission for hunting in certain locations. A fully guided
hunt usually includes lodging, meals, and guide services,
such as transporting the hunter to the location, setting up
blinds or tree stands, and maintaining trail cameras. In a
do-it-yourself or self-guided hunt, the outfitter might only
provide access to the property for hunting.
2016, Paul Rademaker entered into an agreement with WRO for a
ten-day fully guided hunt in Iowa and Missouri beginning
December 27, 2016, for $5000. Wulf paid for Rademaker's
lodging at a motel in Bloomfield but only provided three or
four meals, rather than the thirty meals Rademaker expected
to receive. Also, Wulf never took Rademaker to any hunting
locations. Wulf provided Rademaker with an electronic map
with a pin on it and told Rademaker to go to the location
himself. Rademaker's Iowa hunting license was only valid
in Zone 6, but one of the locations Wulf sent to Rademaker
was in Zone 5, where it was illegal for Rademaker to hunt. No
locations were in Missouri. Wulf did not provide Rademaker
with any other guide services. After a few days, Rademaker
contacted another outfitter who took him to hunting
locations, provided blinds and tree stands, and information
from trail cameras. Rademaker did not receive a refund from
Granberg entered into an agreement with WRO for a five-day
fully guided hunt in Iowa, beginning December 27, 2016, for
which he paid $2750. Wulf told Granberg to check in at the
Bloomfield motel, where Wulf had paid for Granberg's
lodging. Granberg wanted to go hunting that day. He exchanged
calls and texts with Wulf, but Wulf never appeared to take
him hunting. Granberg decided to leave Bloomfield. He went to
another town and lined up another outfitter. Granberg asked
Wulf for a refund but never got any money back.
2016, Randall McMillan entered into a contract with WRO for a
five-day fully guided hunt in Iowa in December 2016 and paid
a deposit of $1250. Under the terms of the contract, McMillan
would be refunded his deposit if he did not receive a
nonresident antlered deer-hunting license. McMillan did not
receive a nonresident antlered deer-hunting license in the
drawing. Wulf did not give McMillan a refund for his deposit.
was charged with ongoing criminal conduct, in violation of
Iowa Code section 706A.2(4), a class "B" felony;
and two counts of theft in the second degree, in violation of
section 714.2(2), a class "D" felony. A jury found
Wulf guilty of these charges; he was sentenced to terms of
imprisonment not to exceed twenty-five years, five years, and
five years, all to be served concurrently. Wulf was ordered
to pay restitution of $4725 to Rademaker, $2750 to Granberg,
and $1250 to McMillan. Wulf appeals his convictions.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
was charged with ongoing criminal conduct by engaging in an
act of specified unlawful activity under section 706A.2(4),
which provides, "It is unlawful for a person to commit
specified unlawful activity as defined in section
706A.1." Section 706A.1(5) defines "Specified
unlawful activity," as "any act, including any
preparatory or completed offense, committed for financial
gain on a continuing basis, that is punishable as an
indictable offense under the laws of the state in which it
occurred and under the laws of this state." The
underlying offense for the charge of ongoing criminal conduct
was theft by deception under section 714.1(3). The two
charges of second-degree theft were also based on a theory of
theft by deception.
person commits theft by deception when the person
Obtains the labor or services of another, or a transfer of
possession, control, or ownership of the property of another,
or the beneficial use of property of another, by deception.
Where compensation for goods and services is ordinarily paid
immediately upon the obtaining of such goods or the rendering
of such services, the refusal to pay or leaving the premises
without payment or offer to pay or without having obtained
from the owner or operator the right to pay ...