State v. McCombs

1

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DYLAN ANTHONY McCOMBS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 22-1422

Court of Appeals of Iowa

January 24, 2024

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B Hanson (sentencing) and Scott D. Rosenberg (jury trials and guilty plea), Judges.

The defendant appeals his convictions and sentences for first-degree theft, first-degree criminal mischief, willful injury causing bodily injury, assault while displaying a dangerous weapon, extortion, and first-degree harassment. AFFIRMED.

Denise M. Gonyea of McKelvie Law Office, Grinnell, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Buller, JJ.

GREER Presiding Judge.

In this case, Dylan McCombs urges us to consider his appellate arguments related to four cases: two jury trials resulting in guilty verdicts, a guilty plea, and convictions after a bench trial; he also challenges the combined sentencing that followed his convictions in the four cases.^[1] As for his conviction for willful injury causing bodily injury, McCombs challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, contending that the State failed to prove specific intent and failed to disprove his justification defense. Regarding his convictions for first-degree theft and first-degree criminal mischief McCombs claims error by the trial court when it ordered him to wear leg shackles during his jury trial. McCombs argues that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him to consecutive terms of imprisonment. Following our review of each issue McCombs raised, we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings.

FECR356133. McCombs was charged via trial information with first-degree theft in violation of Iowa Code sections 714.1(4) and .2(1) (2021), a class "C" felony, and first-degree criminal mischief in violation of Iowa Code sections 716.1 and .3(1)(a), a class "C" felony, in March 2022. At the jury trial in June 2022, McCombs's attorney told the district court, "My client has made some statement on the phone to parties I don't know of but that were deemed threatening in nature and that he has, currently, some form of shock device to his leg." He added that his "client has indicated that he does not consent to having that device on his leg, that he would like me to request that court order that be removed. I would state that it is not able to be seen by the jury." Regarding leg shackles, McCombs's counsel confirmed that "the parties are in agreement with removing those before the jury comes in." McCombs stated on his own behalf, "This thing hurts as it's on my leg. I'm scared for my life right now. I feel like they're going to zap me.... I just want this thing off my leg." He added that it was "too tight.... It's itching and it's scaring the shit out of me." After the district court asked if McCombs would agree to just wear shackles on his legs, McCombs said that he would agree to that. Trial was held with McCombs wearing leg shackles. The jury found McCombs guilty as charged.

FECR352169. In another case, McCombs was charged with willful injury while displaying a dangerous weapon in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.4(1) and 907.2, a class "C" felony, in October 2021. Prior to trial, McCombs filed a notice of self-defense. The case came to trial in May 2022, and the complaining witness, L.D, testified. He stated that he and McCombs interacted occasionally at a boat ramp and on one occasion, L.D. tried to help McCombs get his vehicle unstuck. When police officers showed up, McCombs disappeared, and the police impounded the vehicle. McCombs's cell phone and wallet were inside the vehicle, and L.D. believed that the police officers took the cell phone and wallet with the vehicle.

About a week later, L.D. saw McCombs at the boat ramp again at night. After walking past L.D., McCombs went to his vehicle and retrieved a wooden baseball bat. McCombs asked L.D. where his items were, and L.D. answered that the police had them. L.D. claimed that at that point, McCombs threatened to take his truck and that he may have lunged at McCombs first; L.D. admitted to ripping McCombs's shirt. However, L.D. did not have any weapons on him. L.D. described the first hit with the baseball bat from McCombs to his lower right rib cage as "like a shock went through my body. It was like-you know, a release.... Hard enough to shatter my spleen." The second hit was from behind and to the side of L.D.'s head after he had turned away from McCombs. He also claimed that he had bruises on his left side, underneath his arm, and on his leg just below the knee, mentioning that he was unsure if the bruising on his left side was from the baseball bat or because he had fallen down. L.D. spent two days in the hospital in the intensive care unit recovering.

The State offered and the district court admitted ten photographs of L.D.'s injuries taken eleven days after the alleged assault, which showed a scab and missing hair on the back of his head and bruising on his leg. The State also offered and the district court admitted a recording of a phone call by McCombs from jail. In that phone call, McCombs said that on the day of depositions L.D. "showed up. I'm fucking smoked on that charge." He also claimed that he "only hit the fucker once."

McCombs also testified. He said that after he and L.D. started yelling at each other, McCombs noticed a baseball bat on the ground by the truck and that the baseball bat was L.D.'s. He claimed that L.D. "jumped on me, and we started tussling. I ended with a black eye, my lip got broken." McCombs also admitted that he "swung one time" with the bat and hit L.D. "in the back of the head." Throughout this time, according to McCombs, L.D. was hitting him with his fists "[i]n the face, in the stomach. Anywhere he could pretty much get ahold of me." When asked about the baseball bat, McCombs described it as "a little, tiny wooden bat that [L.D.] kept with him at all times." McCombs also testified that he only hit L.D. on the head and that he did so intending to get L.D. off of him. McCombs claimed that while L.D. attacked him first, after he picked up the baseball bat L.D. "made the-made the decision to attack me, knowing that I had that in my hand." Yet, McCombs admitted that he started the argument that day. The jury found McCombs guilty of the lesser-included charge of willful injury causing bodily injury in violation of Iowa Code section 708.4(1), a class "D" felony.

AGCR349516 and FECR359608. In the remaining two cases, McCombs pled guilty to assault while displaying a dangerous weapon in violation of Iowa Code section 708.1(3), an aggravated misdemeanor, in July 2022.^[2] And following a bench trial, the district court found McCombs guilty of two counts of extortion in violation of Iowa Code section 711.4(1)(a), class "D" felonies, and two counts of first-degree harassment in violation of Iowa Code section 708.7(2), aggravated misdemeanors, in August 2022.

ALL FOUR CASES. With determinations of guilt in these four cases, the district court proceeded to sentencing in August 2022. At the sentencing hearing, the State asked for the sentences to run consecutively to each other; McCombs asked for them to run concurrently. After considering McCombs's age, his prior record of convictions, and the nature of the offenses committed, the district court sentenced McCombs to ten years on the convictions for first-degree theft and first-degree criminal mischief, five years on the convictions for willful injury causing bodily injury and extortion, and two years on the convictions for assault while displaying a dangerous weapon and harassment. The district court ordered these sentences to run consecutively for a total term of incarceration not to exceed forty-one years.^[3] In doing so, the district court stated that it was ordering "them consecutive because of the separate and serious nature of these offenses and because of the obvious safety concerns with respect to the public from you." McCombs appeals.

II. Standard of Review.

We review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting convictions for correction of errors at law. State v. Sanford, 814 N.W.2d 611, 615 (Iowa 2012). We affirm when the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, meaning "the quantum and quality of evidence is sufficient to 'convince a rational fact finder that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'" State v. Banes, 910 N.W.2d 634, 637 (Iowa Ct. App. 2018) (citation omitted). In conducting our review, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, including all reasonable inferences that may be fairly drawn from the evidence. Id.

We reverse a sentence only if the sentencing court abused its discretion or there was some defect in the sentencing procedure. State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 103 (Iowa 2020). An abuse of discretion occurs when "the district court exercises its discretion on grounds or for reasons that were clearly untenable or unreasonable." State v. Gordon, 921 N.W.2d 19, 24 (Iowa 2018) (citation omitted). When the sentencing court abuses its discretion, the defendant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing. State v. West Vangen, 975 N.W.2d 344, 355 (Iowa 2022).

III. Analysis.

McCombs raises three challenges to his convictions and sentences: (1) the district court erred by ordering him to wear leg shackles during his trial in front of the jury for first-degree theft and first-degree criminal mischief, (2) the State failed to prove specific intent and failed to disprove his justification defense for the charge of willful injury causing bodily injury, and (3) the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him to consecutive terms on the four cases.

...