from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Kirk A.
Daily, District Associate Judge.
appeals his conviction of operating while intoxicated, third
J. Mitchell of Orsborn, Milani, Mitchell, Goedken, Larson
& Cox, P.C., Ottumwa, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas E. Bakke, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Scott, S.J.
Francis appeals his conviction of operating while intoxicated
(OWI), third offense. We find the district court did not
abuse its discretion in determining certain evidence was not
relevant and therefore not admissible. We determine there is
substantial evidence in the record to support Francis's
conviction. We conclude Francis has not shown he received
ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm Francis's
conviction for OWI, third offense.
Background Facts & Proceedings
April 24, 2017, Officer Jordan Staton of the Ottumwa Police
Department was at the Countryside Bar & Grill on an
unrelated matter when he observed Francis stumbling as he
walked through the parking lot. Officer Staton stated,
"I observed Mr. Francis enter his vehicle, shut the door
and turn the vehicle on." He stated he could hear the
car engine running and "I watched it turn on." When
questioned further, Officer Staton stated he was 100 percent
certain the engine was running.
Officer Staton approached the vehicle, he saw Francis had
bloodshot and watery eyes, slow and slurred speech, and an
odor of an alcoholic beverage. Francis failed field sobriety
tests. He was arrested and taken to the police station, where
a breath test showed Francis's alcohol level was .139,
which is above the legal limit. Francis was charged with OWI,
third offense, in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2(1)(a)
to trial, Francis informed the court he intended to introduce
evidence to show he suffered from post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD) and at times had suicidal ideation. He
claimed the evidence was relevant to show the reason he was
sitting in his car without the intention of driving home. The
State argued the evidence was irrelevant. The district court
Whether the defendant has PTSD or not, there's no
credible evidence on that. So the term PTSD will not be used
or admitted in any way, shape or form.
Whether the defendant has suicidal tendencies, again, is not
relevant to the issue in this case and no mention of that
shall be made.
The defendant may make mention that he's a veteran. He
may also indicate that he left the bar because of issues he
has as a veteran but to any extent further than that, those
issues may not be ...