IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-0055
Filed May 20, 2015
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
DAEVONE RASHAD BROWN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert J. Blink,
Judge.
The defendant appeals from the judgment and sentence entered upon his
conviction of second-degree robbery. CONVICTION AFFIRMED, SENTENCE
VACATED, AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
Nicholas A. Bailey of Bailey Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Altoona, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Katie Fiala, Assistant Attorney
General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Jim Ward, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Eisenhauer, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2015).
2
EISENHAUER, S.J.
Daevone Brown appeals from the judgment and sentence entered upon
his conviction of second-degree robbery. He contends there is insufficient
evidence to support a guilty verdict. Brown also contends the court erred in
imposing a mandatory minimum sentence because Brown was a minor at the
time the crime was committed.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
On January 28, 2013, Lyndsey Buckley reported Brown and Andrew
Buchanan had robbed her of $1277. She stated a gun was held to her head and
one of the men threatened to kill her if she called the police. Buckley repeated
her version of events to another officer on the day in question and once more
three days later. Those statements were consistent.
The State charged both Brown and Buchanan with first-degree robbery, in
violation of Iowa Code sections 711.1 and 711.3 (2013). Because he was
charged with a forcible felony, Brown was prosecuted as an adult even though he
was seventeen years old at the time the crime was committed. See Iowa Code
§ 232.8(1)(c). Brown initially pleaded guilty to amended charges of first-degree
theft, assault while participating in a felony, and going armed with intent. He later
filed a pro se motion in arrest of judgment, which the court granted, and the
original charge of first-degree robbery was reinstated.
Brown and Buchanan were tried together in November 2013. At trial,
Buckley recanted the statements she had given police in January 2013. She
testified she was angry with Brown because she thought he was seeing another
woman. In her new version of events, Buckley claimed she owed Brown money
3
and considered his act of taking the $1277 a repayment on the loan. She further
testified she lied to the police when she stated a gun was held to her head.
Despite the change in Buckley’s version of events, the jury found both Brown and
Buchanan guilty of robbery in the second degree. Brown was sentenced to an
indeterminate term of no more than ten years in prison and was ordered to serve
at least seven-tenths of that sentence. See Iowa Code §§ 902.9, .12.
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Brown first contends the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of
acquittal because there is insufficient evidence to support a conviction for
second-degree robbery. We review his claim for a correction of errors at law.
See State v. Robinson, 859 N.W.2d 464, 467 (Iowa 2015). “Evidence is
sufficient to withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal when, viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the State and drawing all reasonable
inferences in the State’s favor, there is substantial evidence in the record to
support a finding of the challenged element.” State v. Milom, 744 N.W.2d 117,
120 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In order to find Brown guilty of second-degree robbery, the jury was
instructed the State had to prove the following:
1. On or about the 28th day of January, 2013, the defendant
Daevone Rashad Brown, or someone he aided and abetted had the
specific intent to commit a theft.
2. To carry out his or another’s intention or to assist him in
escaping from the scene, the defendant, or the person or persons
he aided and abetted:
a. Committed an assault upon Lyndsey Buckley, and/or
b. Threatened Lyndsey Buckley with, and/or purposely put
Lyndsey Buckley, in fear of immediate serious injury.
4
Brown notes Buckley is the only witness who could offer a firsthand account of
what occurred and asserts her testimony “falls far short” of establishing the
elements of second-degree robbery.
We find substantial evidence in the record supports Brown’s conviction of
second-degree robbery. We note our earlier opinion concluding the evidence
presented at trial was sufficient to support Buchanan’s second-degree robbery
conviction. State v. Buchanan, No. 13-1999, 2015 WL 162028, at *2 (Iowa Ct.
App. Jan. 14, 2015) (noting that although Buckley changed her version of the
facts at trial, a rational factfinder could find her original version of events, which
satisfied the elements of second-degree robbery, was more credible). We affirm
on the same basis. The statements Buckley made to law enforcement in
January 2013 establish the elements of second-degree robbery. Although her
statement changed at trial, the jury was not bound to accept her trial testimony.
See State v. Frake, 450 N.W.2d 817, 818-19 (Iowa 1990). When confronted with
two different versions of events, the jury’s determination of the facts “would likely
be based upon the credibility of the witness.” Id. The function of the jury is to
weigh the evidence and determine witness credibility. State v. Shanahan, 712
N.W.2d 121, 135 (Iowa 2006).
III. Sentence.
Brown also challenges the imposition of the mandatory minimum sentence
given his age at the time the crime was committed. In State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d
378, 404 (Iowa 2014), our supreme court held article I, section 17 of the Iowa
Constitution “forbids a mandatory minimum sentencing schema for juvenile
offenders that deprives the district court of the discretion to consider youth and its
5
attendant circumstances as a mitigating factor and to impose a lighter
punishment by eliminating the minimum period of incarceration without parole.”
Because Brown challenges the constitutionality of his sentence, our review is de
novo. See Lyle, 854 N.W.2d at 382.
We note Lyle does not prohibit the court from imposing a minimum
sentence; rather, the court must use its discretion to consider youth and its
attendant circumstances as a mitigating factor. Id. at 404. Therefore, before
imposing a minimum sentence, the court must determine the following factors
warrant a minimum period of incarceration without parole:
(1) the age of the offender and the features of youthful behavior,
such as “immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and
consequences”; (2) the particular “family and home environment”
that surround the youth; (3) the circumstances of the particular
crime and all circumstances relating to youth that may have played
a role in the commission of the crime; (4) the challenges for
youthful offenders in navigating through the criminal process; and
(5) the possibility of rehabilitation and the capacity for change.
Id. at 404 n.10.
Brown argues the court failed to exercise its discretion in sentencing him
to a minimum period of parole. Because the sentencing hearing was held in
December 2013, the district court did not have the benefit of the Lyle opinion
when sentencing Brown. During the sentencing Brown argued the mandatory
sentence was unconstitutional, and in response, the court stated, “Well, my
interpretation of the law right now, Mr. Brown, is that the mandatory minimum
must be imposed.” Brown argues this statement makes it obvious the district
court felt it had no discretion.
6
The court did not stop its analysis with its statement of belief “the
mandatory minimum must be imposed”; rather, it went on to give some other
reasons for imposing the minimum sentence:
So in reviewing the PSI and having heard the evidence in this case,
assuming for the sake of argument that I am wrong and you are
correct, it is this Court’s view that the rehabilitation potential for
Mr. Brown is limited. Certainly, it is lessened. And, for whatever
reason, Mr. Brown, at a very young age, has demonstrated a
significant willingness to disregard the rights, the feelings, and the
safety of others. And so, to that extent, if an individualized decision
has to be made under these circumstances, those are the
observations that I make.
However, the court did not explicitly consider each of the factors set forth in Lyle
and prior juvenile sentencing opinions. Given the heightened requirements of
Lyle, we conclude remand is required for a hearing to consider “all the relevant
factors and facts of the case.” Id.
We vacate the sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing to
consider the factors set forth in Lyle.
CONVICTION AFFIRMED, SENTENCE VACATED, AND REMANDED
FOR RESENTENCING.