State v. Daniels
| Decision Date | 28 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 14–1442.,14–1442. |
| Citation | 888 N.W.2d 680 (Table) |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Derrick Deondre DANIELS, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Rees Conrad Douglas, Sioux City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by VOGEL, P.J., VAITHESWARAN, J., and GOODHUE, S.J.*
Derrick Deondre Daniels has appealed from a bench trial finding him guilty of possession of more than fifty grams of cocaine base with intent to distribute and possession of a taxable substance with no stamp tax affixed and the sentences entered.
On January 6, 2013, the Waterloo Police Department was conducting surveillance of certain individuals and a vehicle believed to be involved in a cocaine trafficking operation. Officer Nicholas Barry was watching the Waterloo bus station when he saw an individual, later determined to be Derrick Daniels, get off of a Trail Ways bus arriving from Chicago. He was carrying a black duffle bag and walked toward a silver SUV. The silver SUV, driven by Latosha Daniels, had also been under surveillance by the police department. Daniels was observed getting into the vehicle carrying the black duffle bag. The vehicle was later stopped, and the duffle bag was found on the passenger side of the vehicle between Daniel's feet. The bag contained what was later determined to be almost seventy grams of cocaine base or crack cocaine. There was no drug stamp affixed to the duffle bag or the crack cocaine.
The silver vehicle driven by Latosha had been stopped earlier in the day and had been searched. It contained no black duffle bag at that time and had continued to be under surveillance until it was stopped after departing from the bus station. Immediately thereafter, Latosha's residence was searched. Plastic baggies, two razors, and an electronic scale were found, all items frequently used by drug dealers. A pill box bearing Derrick Daniels name was also found at the residence.
Daniels was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine base with the intent to deliver of less than fifty grams, which was later amended to more than fifty grams, and with possession of a controlled substance with no drug stamp affixed. While in jail, Daniels initiated a conversation with Deputy Sheriff Wayne Sidles in which Daniels stated he brought the "stuff" back for "Big Wil" and indicated he wanted to cut a deal but terminated the conversation by indicating he wanted to talk to an attorney.
Daniels waived his right to a jury and stood trial before the court. Officer Joshua Zubak, a Waterloo police officer knowledgeable about the drug scene in Waterloo, testified that seventy grams of crack cocaine was not consistent with the amount ordinarily possessed by a user. He further testified that seventy grams of crack in Waterloo would sell for about $100 per gram or $7000.
Daniels was found guilty of possession of more than fifty grams of cocaine with intent to distribute and also of possession of a controlled substance without a tax stamp affixed. Daniels was sentenced to fifty years in prison with a mandatory one-third minimum sentence on the possession-with-intent-to-distribute charge and five years in prison on the charge of failure to affix a drug stamp. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Daniels has appealed claiming: (1) insufficiency of the evidence to support conviction; (2) the sentence violated the clauses of the state and Federal Constitutions prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment; and (3) the sentence imposed violated the Equal Protection Clause of both the state and Federal Constitution.
A motion for judgment for acquittal was made, but when the trial is to the court, the sufficiency of the evidence claim may be made without a motion. See State v. Abbas, 561 N.W.2d 72, 74 (Iowa 1997).
Sufficiency of the evidence claims are reviewed for errors of law. State v. Sanford, 814 N.W.2d 611, 615 (Iowa 2012).
Evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the State when reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims. Id. If the evidence is such that it can convince a rational jury the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, substantial evidence is present. Id. Daniels contends substantial evidence does not show he was in possession of the crack cocaine. Daniels was seen carrying the duffle bag containing the cocaine from the bus station to the awaiting vehicle. He was in sole possession of the bag containing the cocaine base. Proof of knowledge is not required but may be inferred when the accused has exclusive possession. State v. Reeves, 209 N.W.2d 18, 23 (Iowa 1973). The inference may be rebutted, but in this case no conflicting evidence was offered. See id.
To the extent Daniels contends the State failed to prove intent, his statements to law enforcement after his arrest indicated he knew he was carrying something he could not legally possess. The trial court found "defendant himself indicated to police that he knew about the drugs in the bag and he was carrying them for someone else ." Daniels cites cases involving constructive possession, but Daniels's possession was direct and in-fact possession. The record contains substantial evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to support both charges.
A sentence that is claimed to be cruel and unusual is a challenge to the legality or constitutionality of the sentence imposed and can be raised at any time. State v. Lathrop, 781 N.W.2d 288, 293 (Iowa 2010).
Constitutional issues are reviewed de novo, but statutes are presumed constitutional, and unconstitutionality must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Tripp, 776 N.W.2d 855, 857 (Iowa 2010).
Both the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article 1, section 17 of the Iowa Constitution prohibit cruel and unusual punishment. An attack on a sentence as a violation of the constitutional provision prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment can be either as it applies to the particular party's sentence or a categorical or facial challenge to the statute itself. State v. Oliver, 812 N.W.2d 636, 640 (Iowa 2012). Initially, Daniels appears to contend that the sentence he received is excessively severe and is grossly disproportionate as to him personally.
To determine whether the particular sentence given to Daniels is disproportionate to the crime, we apply a three-step analysis set out in Solem v. Helms, 463 U.S. 277, 296–300 (1983). The first step is to determine whether the sentence leads to an inference of gross disproportionality. Oliver, 812 N.W.2d at 647. If the threshold step is satisfied, we compare the challenged sentence to other crimes within our jurisdiction and then compare the sentence to sentences in other jurisdictions for the same or similar crimes. Id. Even though we impose a more rigorous review under the Iowa Constitution than the United States Constitution, it is a high burden, and it is rare that the threshold is met. Id. at 650.
Our preliminary task is to balance the gravity of the crime with the severity of the sentence imposed. State v. Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d 862, 873 (Iowa 2009). The legislature is considered the most reliable objective indicator of community standards; therefore, we defer to legislative judgments as to what punishment is applicable to a specific crime. Id. A broadly-framed criminal statute and dramatic enhancement for repeat offenders are factors that allow an individualized showing. Id. at 884. If there is no unusual combination of features that converge to create a higher risk of gross disproportionality, then Daniels is limited to a facial or categorical attack. See id. Our inquiry becomes whether this is one of those rare cases where an individual assessment of the punishment as it relates to Daniels should be granted. We think not.
Daniels has not been convicted of a broadly-framed crime. Cocaine trafficking is exactly what Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(a)(3) (2013) was designed to prevent, and the statute is precise in its application. The cited section enhances the sentence based on large quantities precisely defined. The convergence of factors present in Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d at 884, allowing the court to consider an individualized treatment to determine gross disproportionality, is not present. Daniels tried to use his young age as factor. He was twenty-two years old at the time he committed the crime. However, he was an adult, albeit a young adult. Mandatory minimums have been held to not apply to juveniles or "youthful offenders" but the cases make it clear that adults were in a different category, implying they should be treated as adults. See State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378, 403 (Iowa 2014). In Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d at 876–77, the defendant was twenty-one years old, but his age was not mentioned as a factor requiring an individually applied test. Daniels cannot meet the initial criteria in attempting to challenge his particular sentence. He must resort to a facial or categorical challenge to the applicable statute. See Oliver, 812 N.W.2d at 640.
In a categorical attack on a statute, we must look to indications of a national consensus as to a particular placement and the culpability of the offender considering the crime committed and the severity of the punishment. Id. Daniels provides examples from the federal system and Minnesota system, both of which reputably would have resulted in a lesser period of incarceration. The comparisons do not consider the totality of the Iowa criminal justice system, which includes indeterminate sentences, probation, and deferred judgments. See Iowa Code §§ 901.10, 902.3, 907.3. Also, two other jurisdictions is a sparse comparison to make a meaningful assessment of a national consensus. Drug abuse is an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daniels v. Iowa
...v. State, 949 N.W.2d 443 (Table), 2020 WL 4201236, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. July 22, 2020) (quoting State v. Daniels, 888 N.W.2d 680 (Table), 2016 WL 5408279, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2016)). The district court sentenced Daniels to indeterminate terms of imprisonment of up to 50 years on ......