State of Iowa v. Anthony Soteco ( 2021 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20-1291
Filed September 1, 2021
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ANTHONY WILLIS SOTECO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton,
District Associate Judge.
Anthony Willis Soteco challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
his conviction for domestic abuse assault. AFFIRMED.
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Josh Irwin, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester, Assistant
Attorney General, and Lisa Manoogian, Student Legal Intern, for appellee.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.
2
AHLERS, Judge.
Following a bench trial, Anthony Soteco was found guilty of domestic abuse
assault.1 On appeal, he argues the evidence was insufficient to prove he acted
with specific intent to cause pain, injury, or physical contact that would be insulting
or offensive to the alleged victim.
Sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges are reviewed for corrections of
errors at law. State v. Donahue, 957 N.W.2d 1, 7 (Iowa 2021). We uphold the
verdict on a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge if substantial evidence supports
it. State v. Schiebout, 944 N.W.2d 666, 670 (Iowa 2020). Following a bench trial,
we review the district court’s findings as we would a jury verdict, meaning we will
affirm the verdict if supported by substantial evidence. State v. Warren, 955
N.W.2d 848, 857 (Iowa 2021). “Evidence is substantial ‘if, when viewed in the light
most favorable to the State, it can convince a rational jury that the defendant is
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Schiebout, 944 N.W.2d at 670 (quoting State
v. Trane, 934 N.W.2d 447, 455 (Iowa 2019)). All evidence is considered, not just
the evidence supporting the verdict. State v. Huser, 894 N.W.2d 472, 490 (Iowa
2017).
Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the district court could find
the following facts. On December 30, 2019, E.S. was the renter of a room at an
extended-stay hotel. Soteco was living with her in the room. The front desk clerk
received several calls from E.S.’s room. When the clerk answered, she could hear
1 After being found guilty, Soteco stipulated to a prior domestic-abuse-assault
conviction, causing him to be adjudicated guilty of and being sentenced for
domestic abuse assault, second offense, an aggravated misdemeanor. See Iowa
Code § 708.2A(1), 708.2A(3)(b) (2019).
3
faint noises in the room, but the caller would hang up without saying anything. The
clerk also received calls reporting yelling and stomping in E.S.’s room. The clerk
went to check on E.S.’s room and its occupants, taking the hotel maintenance
technician with her. Soteco answered the door. The maintenance technician and
clerk told Soteco if the hotel received another report of a disturbance, the
authorities would be called. As the clerk walked away from the room, she heard a
female voice, later determined to be that of E.S., yelling “please don’t hurt me” and
“please don’t hit me anymore.” The clerk called the police.
Police arrived to find E.S. in the room. She appeared afraid and had a
swollen and blackened eye and bruises. The first two officers on the scene were
male, and E.S. informed them she was okay. When female officers arrived, E.S.
eventually informed one of them that Soteco struck her in the eye during an
argument. E.S. confirmed these details during her testimony at trial.
To convict Soteco of domestic abuse assault, the State had to prove Soteco
committed “an assault, as defined in [Iowa Code] section 708.1, which is domestic
abuse as defined in section” 236.2(2)(a), (b), (c), or (d). See Iowa Code
§ 708.2A(1). Under the State’s theory of the case, establishing Soteco committed
an assault required the State to prove Soteco, without justification, did “[a]ny act
which is intended to cause pain or injury to, or which is intended to result in physical
contact which will be insulting or offensive to another, coupled with the apparent
ability to execute the act.” See id. § 708.1(2)(a).2 Proving this theory of assault
2 For brevity, we will refer to “[a]ny act which . . . cause[s] pain or injury to, or which
. . . result[s] in physical contact which will be insulting or offensive to another,
coupled with the apparent ability to execute the act” as “assaultive conduct.”
4
requires the State to prove Soteco acted with specific intent. See State v.
Fountain, 786 N.W.2d 260, 265 (Iowa 2010) (holding that, despite legislative
amendments declaring assault to be a general intent crime, the elements of the
offense still require proof of specific intent). Soteco’s sole challenge to his
conviction is his claim the State failed to prove he had the specific intent to engage
in assaultive conduct.
Soteco bases his claim on several pieces of evidence, much of which
consists of or relies on his testimony. Soteco testified E.S. had a history of hitting
herself and claiming Soteco did it. He also testified E.S. was heavily intoxicated
on vodka and had taken excessive prescription medicine with it. He asserted she
was so intoxicated that she fell down and ran into things several times over the
prior day or so. He testified he was awakened from his sleep that night when E.S.
climbed on top of him and began striking him, demanding to know where he hid
the vodka bottle. Soteco testified that, to try to calm E.S. down, he agreed to give
E.S. a couple of sips of vodka. When Soteco removed the vodka bottle from where
he had hidden it to give E.S. a couple of sips, he testified E.S. tried to grab the
bottle from him. Soteco tried to keep the bottle from her while E.S. grabbed
Soteco. As the struggle ensued, Soteco testified E.S. let go of him, slipped, and
fell to the floor, hitting her head, causing her swollen and blackened eye.
As Soteco points out, E.S. corroborated parts of his testimony. E.S.
acknowledges being intoxicated and being fuzzy as to some details of the evening.
However, she denied having any uncertainty about her testimony that Soteco
struck her in the eye during an argument. She also acknowledged she may have
5
stumbled into something in her intoxicated condition, but she did not confirm
Soteco’s claims of her repeatedly falling down.
All of this evidence was presented to the district court as the fact finder. The
district court sifted through the competing evidence and determined E.S.’s version
of events to be more credible than Soteco’s. That is the fact finder’s job. See
State v. Thornton, 498 N.W.2d 670, 673 (Iowa 1993) (“[T]he very function of the
jury is to sort out the evidence and ‘place credibility where it belongs.’” (quoting
State v. Blair, 347 N.W.2d 416, 420 (Iowa 1984))). Soteco’s claim boils down to
nothing more than rearguing his version and interpretation of events and asking us
to do what the fact finder did not do, which is to resolve conflicts in the evidence in
his favor. However, that is not our role in considering a challenge to the sufficiency
of the evidence. In considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “[i]t
is not the province of the court . . . to resolve conflicts in the evidence, to pass upon
the credibility of witnesses, to determine the plausibility of explanations, or to weigh
the evidence; such matters are for the [fact finder].” State v. Musser, 721 N.W.2d
758, 761 (Iowa 2006) (quoting State v. Williams, 695 N.W.2d 23, 28 (Iowa 2005)).
We are required to affirm the district court’s guilty finding so long as, when viewed
in the light most favorable to the State, there is substantial evidence supporting it.
See Schiebout, 944 N.W.2d at 670.
E.S.’s testimony alone is enough to sustain the guilty finding, but there is
additional corroborating evidence. As the clerk left the room after warning Soteco
about the noise, she heard E.S. begging and crying not to be beaten any more.
After the police were summoned, E.S. was found to have a swollen and blackened
eye. She was scared and clinging to the clerk for protection. These details, which
6
came from the testimony of disinterested witnesses, corroborate E.S.’s testimony
that Soteco struck her in the eye during an argument and constitute substantial
evidence supporting the district court’s guilty finding. The fact Soteco testified to
a different version of events and seeks to discredit E.S.’s testimony based on her
intoxication does not change the outcome, because “the ultimate question is
whether [the evidence] supports the finding actually made, not whether the
evidence would support a different finding.” Brokaw v. Winfield-Mt. Union Cmty.
Sch. Dist., 788 N.W.2d 386, 393 (Iowa 2010) (quoting Raper v. State, 688 N.W.2d
29, 36 (Iowa 2004)).
Substantial evidence supports the district court’s finding that Soteco had the
specific intent to engage in assaultive conduct. As this is the only issue Soteco
raises on appeal, we affirm the district court’s finding of guilt and the corresponding
adjudication and sentence.
AFFIRMED.