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. Moore

Court of Appeals of Iowa

March 20, 2019

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
QUAYSHAN LAMONTEZ MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.

          Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John D. Telleen (trial) and Henry W. Latham II (sentencing), Judges.

         Quayshan Moore appeals from judgment and sentences following his multiple convictions.

          Eric D. Tindal of Keegan Tindal & Mason, Iowa City, for appellant.

          Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

          Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.

          Potterfield, Presiding Judge.

         Quayshan Moore appeals following a jury trial that resulted in convictions for possession of crack cocaine with intent to deliver, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(c)(3) and 124.401(1)(e) (2017) (firearm enhancement); failure to affix a drug tax stamp, in violation of section 453B.12; possession of a firearm by a domestic violence offender, in violation of section 724.26(2)(a); carrying weapons, in violation of section 724.4(1); interference with official acts, in violation of section 719.1(1)(f); and assault causing bodily injury, in violation of section 708.2(2). Moore challenges the sentences imposed and claims trial counsel was ineffective in stipulating that he was a prohibited person and in failing to challenge the sufficiency of evidence of his intent to deliver cocaine.

         A. Sentencing.

         Moore first asserts the district court failed to state sufficient reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. We review sentencing decisions for errors of law. State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). We will only reverse the district court if the court abused its discretion or if there is a defect in the sentencing procedure. State v. Letscher, 888 N.W.2d 880, 883 (Iowa 2016).

         At the sentencing hearing, the State noted that count one, the drug offense with the firearm enhancement, required incarceration. The State recommended that the sentence on that count run consecutive "at a minimum at least to" the conviction of possession of a firearm as a domestic violence offender, noting the two counts "are absolutely separate and distinct acts of criminal activity." The defense asked that all sentences run concurrently because Moore was facing a twenty-year sentence on the first count and "to keep him in there for an extra five . . . doesn't do him any more service in his rehabilitation."

         Here, the sentencing proceeding involved the six counts following the jury trial, as well as three other charges to which Moore pled guilty. The court imposed terms of incarceration on all nine charges and stated:

As to any consecutive or concurrent sentencing in all of these cases, it is the court's determination that the State's recommendation as to Count 3 in FECR386810 [possession by a prohibited person] is appropriate given the severity of the offenses, and I will make that count consecutive, but I will deny the State's other requests as to the other files. The other files will be served concurrently. I feel for rehabilitation to occur in another additional five years of incarceration is not necessary. I would hope that Mr. Moore has learned from the seriousness of these offenses and the sentencing that I have imposed at this time.

         A court imposing consecutive sentences must state on the record its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. State v. Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d 679, 690 (Iowa 2000). At minimum, a cursory explanation must be provided to allow review of the trial court's discretionary action. Id. Our review of the sentencing transcript shows the court gave adequate reasons for requiring the consecutive sentences.

         B. ...


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.