from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Henry W.
Latham II (trial), Judge, and Mark R. Fowler (sentencing),
District Associate Judge.
Beck appeals from his convictions for driving while barred
and driving while suspended.
D. Tindal of Keegan Tindal & Mason, Iowa City, for
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ogden, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Bower, J., and Mahan, S.J.
1, 2017, Detective Joshua Paul, who was familiar with Rodney
Beck, observed Beck enter a rented vehicle as the lone
occupant and drive to several locations. Beck was
subsequently charged with driving while barred and two counts
of driving while under suspension.
trial, Beck stipulated he was barred from driving and that
his driving privileges were suspended for failure to pay
fines and to post security for an accident. Malcom Mitchell,
the brother of Beck's paramour, was described in opening
statements as bearing "an extremely striking resemblance
to Rodney Beck." Mitchell testified for the defense that
it was he who had been the driver of the vehicle on June 1.
Mitchell testified he was "driving around" as he
"had stuff to do that day." He could not remember
where he went other than HyVee. Defense counsel had Mitchell
and Beck stand next to one another and face the jury. The
jury found Beck guilty as charged.
appeals from his convictions, asserting his trial counsel was
ineffective in failing to object to testimony by Detective
Paul. He also contends the district court failed to provide
adequate reasons for the sentences imposed.
assistance of counsel.
review ineffective assistance claims de novo. State v.
Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128, 133 (Iowa 2006). To succeed in
such a claim, the defendant must prove that counsel failed to
perform an essential duty, and prejudice resulted.
evidence is admissible. Iowa R. Evid. 5.402. As conceded by
the defense at trial, it was "highly relevant" how
Detective Paul was able to identify Beck and why the
detective observed Beck for four hours. Beck contends,
however, counsel failed to object to the detective's
testimony on rebuttal concerning a stop the surveilled
vehicle made at Carter's Quality Tires. He contends the
testimony was presented to create a "strong suggestion
from the State that the purpose of the driving behavior was
to commit unrelated criminal acts that the jury would convict
Beck as a bad person." However, the evidence was
relevant for other purposes.
testified that only he drove the rented vehicle on June 1 and
he could not remember where he drove. It was for the jury to
determine whether Mitchell's testimony was credible.
See State v. Harrington, 178 N.W.2d 314, 315 (Iowa
1970) (noting it is the jury's ...