State of Iowa v. Tremayne Thomas ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
    No. 18-1549
    Filed February 5, 2020
    STATE OF IOWA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    vs.
    TREMAYNE THOMAS,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Nancy S. Tabor,
    Judge.
    Tremayne Thomas appeals his convictions for first-degree murder and
    abuse of a corpse. AFFIRMED.
    Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer, Assistant
    Appellate Defender, for appellant.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney
    General, for appellee.
    Heard by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ. Tabor, J., takes no part.
    2
    BOWER, Chief Judge.
    Tremayne Thomas was convicted of first-degree murder and abuse of a
    corpse. On appeal, his counsel argues there was insufficient evidence to prove
    he committed murder.1        While circumstantial, the evidence is sufficiently
    compelling to convince the jury of Thomas’s guilt. We therefore affirm.
    I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
    Around 4:00 a.m. on May 30, 2017, Nicole Long awakened and saw a fire
    about fifty feet down the block. Long filled a milk jug with water, grabbed a fire
    extinguisher, and headed toward the fire. When she arrived, she found two fires—
    one on the sidewalk and the other on the grass near the street.                Long
    unsuccessfully attempted to douse the first fire with water, then used the fire
    extinguisher. When she started to use the extinguisher on the second fire she
    realized it was a body. Kimberly Pizano, a paper delivery person, was in a car
    nearby. Long yelled to Pizano to call 911 while she continued to extinguish the
    flames.
    1 Thomas has filed a pro se supplemental brief also challenging the sufficiency of
    the evidence. We consider Thomas’s pro se brief as part of his appeal because
    this matter was already pending when Iowa Code section 814.6A took effect on
    July 1, 2019. See State v. Macke, 
    933 N.W.2d 226
    , 236 (Iowa 2019) (concluding
    the amendments to Iowa Code section 814.6 and 814.7 apply only prospectively—
    to appeals filed after the law took effect on July 1); State v. Syperda, No. 18-1471
    
    2019 WL 6893791
    , at *12 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2019) (“Because we see no
    suggestion in Macke that the supreme court would treat section 814.6A(1)
    differently from the other amendments in S.F. 589, we conclude we may consider
    [the defendant’s] pro se brief filed before the effective date of the legislation.”);
    State v. Purk, No. 18-0208, 
    2019 WL 5790875
    , at *7 n.8 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 6,
    2019) (applying the reasoning of Macke and concluding section 814.6A “does not
    apply to this appeal, which was filed prior to July 1, 2019”). Because we will
    consider Thomas’s pro se filing, we need not address his claim that the amended
    legislation violates the separation-of-powers doctrine.
    3
    Police officers responded to the 4:29 a.m. dispatch sent out as a result of
    Pizano’s 911 call. When they arrived in front of 3010 Denison, Davenport, they
    found the severely burned body of a man later identified as Brandon Brooks. Near
    the body was another burned area with a coiled spring like that in the nozzle of a
    gas can. An autopsy determined Brooks—who was approximately five feet, two
    inches tall—died of the combined effects of a contact gunshot wound to the left
    arm and multiple blunt force injuries to his head, back, ribs, and stomach. His neck
    also bore ligature marks. Brooks was wearing Walls brand coveralls. A toxicology
    screen found no alcohol or drugs in Brooks’s system.
    An ensuing investigation led to the arrest of Tremayne Thomas, who was
    charged with first-degree murder and abuse of a corpse. From the evidence
    presented at trial viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the jury could
    have found the following:
    At about 5:00 p.m. on May 26, Brooks went to Wal-Mart where he
    purchased a cellphone, which he paid for with two $100 dollar bills. Surveillance
    video shows Brooks took the money from a larger bundle of cash from his pocket.
    On May 29,2 Brooks, Alice Whitfield, and her child went to Thomas’s
    apartment at 3536 Heatherton Drive. While Whitfield and the child stayed in their
    vehicle, Brooks got into a vehicle with Thomas and talked for thirty to forty-five
    minutes. After leaving Thomas’s apartment, Brooks had Whitfield drive him to Wal-
    Mart, where he purchased a bicycle and other items. The purchase was made at
    1:22 p.m. Surveillance video shows Brooks wearing dark clothing and a baseball
    2   May 29, 2017, was Memorial Day.
    4
    cap. Brooks removed several bills from his pockets and paid for the bicycle and
    other items with cash. Brooks rode the bicycle out of the store, gave a bag
    containing his other items to Whitfield, and rode away on the bicycle.
    Sometime during the evening of May 29, Thomas called Robert Graham
    and asked him to “give his friend a ride.”3 Graham went to Mother Hubbard’s
    Cupboard gas station and convenience store at 3636 Hickory Grove and picked
    up a short man wearing a black baseball cap and dark clothes. The man asked to
    use Graham’s phone, made a call, and then Graham dropped the man off at 29th
    and Heatherton. The gas station is north and slightly west of the Heatherton
    Apartment complex where Thomas resided.
    According to available cell-tower information, from 11:03 p.m. on May 29 to
    12:17 a.m. on May 30, Brooks’s cellphone was within a geographic area that
    included Thomas’s apartment. No further activity occurred on Brooks’s phone after
    12:17 a.m., and the phone was never found.
    At 12:28 a.m. on May 30, the Mother Hubbard’s Cupboard surveillance
    video shows Thomas, Michael Jackson, and Gervonte Williams get out of a green
    Dodge Caravan and enter the convenience store. Thomas appears to be wearing
    dark pants and a two-toned lighter jacket. When the three men left the store,
    Thomas got in the rear seat of the van, Williams got in the front passenger seat,
    and Jackson got in the driver’s seat.
    3  Graham did not know the time but said, “It was getting dark out. It was barely
    light because I had my headlights on.” Graham testified Thomas paid him “a few
    dollars” for driving.
    5
    At 3:45 a.m., video surveillance in and outside of 3240 Heatherton Drive
    shows Thomas drive up in a green Dodge Caravan, exit the van, enter an
    apartment using a key, and leave about two minutes later carrying a gas can.
    Thomas was dressed in different clothing than shown on the Mother Hubbard’s
    Cupboard surveillance video—he now had on a larger beige coat and what
    appears to be baggier pants. Thomas got into the driver’s seat of the Caravan and
    drove away. No one else was visible in the van.
    At 4:12 a.m., a citizen’s surveillance system at 3226 Denison captured video
    of a full-sized dark pickup truck with a topper driving by and headed away from
    where Brooks’s body was found.
    On May 31, Detective Bryon Grothus was one of several officers involved
    in conducting surveillance of Thomas’s 3536 Heatherton apartment on an
    unrelated matter. Detective Grothus saw Thomas exit his building, get into a white
    truck, and get let off at 3374 Heatherton, where police knew Thomas’s girlfriend
    lived. While watching 3374 Heatherton, Detective Grothus saw a man on the back
    deck smoking a cigarette. That man later got into a green Dodge Caravan and
    drove away. The man returned in the van, and Detective Grothus approached the
    van on foot and asked the man to stop to talk. However, the man drove away.
    Detective Grothus was able to identify the driver of the van as Williams.
    Police knocked on Thomas’s girlfriend’s apartment door but got no
    response for quite some time. Eventually, Thomas exited the apartment and was
    taken into custody.
    Police learned Thomas was employed at the Heatherton Apartment
    complex doing outside landscape work.         He had access to several of the
    6
    apartments, including 3240 Heatherton, Apartment 2, which was used as a supply
    closet for all the maintenance work. A video surveillance system was housed in
    that apartment.
    Another maintenance worker for the apartment complex, Randy Libby, told
    police there was no standard clothing requirement but they would wear coverall
    type pants. Libby stated Thomas had at one point given him a pair of black
    Carhartt-type pants. He also showed police a pair of Wall coveralls. Libby was
    able to determine a gas can was missing from the room.
    Sheldon Aviles managed the apartments at Heatherton Drive and worked
    with Thomas doing landscaping. Aviles testified that at some point Thomas gave
    him a pair of brown/tannish Walls coveralls.
    On the evening of May 31, police officers questioned Thomas after advising
    him of his Miranda rights. Thomas acknowledged he knew Brooks and that he had
    offered to allow Brooks to stay at his apartment on May 29. Thomas repeatedly
    stated he had nothing to do with Brooks’s death or setting the body on fire. He
    described Brooks as argumentative, having problems with others, and as having
    a “mouth on him.” He said he had not seen Brooks that night because Thomas
    spent the evening with his girlfriend, his uncle, and his aunt. He claimed he spent
    the entire night with his girlfriend at her apartment (3374 Heatherton). Thomas
    also told the officers he hardly ever stayed at his own apartment, using it only when
    his children came to visit because their mother did not like his girlfriend.
    Thomas’s apartment was searched.          A cleaning-product container was
    found with blood on it. Blood spatters were also found on a number of walls and
    the floor. The bathroom had a number of visible blood spatters. One officer
    7
    testified that when the bathroom was sprayed with luminol—an agent used to
    indicate the presence of blood—“[t]he sink, the floor, the wall above the toilet, and
    then the other wall” all lit up. “[Y]ou could see like it was smeared, how I would
    describe it.” Testing indicated the blood throughout the apartment belonged to
    Brooks.
    On June 2, a green Dodge Ram 1500 pickup with a topper was located by
    police in an alley behind 1636 West Third Street, which is where Williams stayed.
    Police had earlier had contact with Thomas at that address on an unrelated call.
    It was determined the pickup belonged to Thomas. The truck had a strong smell
    of cleaning agents and police found a bucket of cleaning supplies in the back seat.
    In addition to the cleaning supplies, a lighter, and a round of .22 caliber ammunition
    were also found in the truck. Three blood samples taken from the bed of the truck
    resulted in a DNA profile consistent with Brooks’s DNA profile.
    On June 3, police located the green Caravan parked on the street on the
    1500 block of West Third. The van was registered to a woman with an address of
    1636 West Third Street. Brooks’s blood was found on the hatchback of the Dodge
    Caravan. There was a hammer under the driver’s seat. There was a bat in the
    back, but suspected areas of blood were not confirmed. The bat and a red gas
    can were found under some children’s backpacks and clothing in the rear of the
    van.
    Police learned Thomas had two cellphones. An officer analyzed the calls,
    texts, and transmission towers used by the phones and learned that on May 30,
    between 1:58 a.m. and 3:49 a.m. there was no activity on Thomas’s AT&T phone.
    On his other, I Wireless, phone there was no activity between 2:11 a.m. to
    8
    2:55 a.m. and again between 3:44 a.m. and 4:47 a.m. According to cell-tower
    records, from 12:17 a.m. to 4:35 a.m. on May 30, Thomas’s AT&T phone was
    located in various areas ranging from those encompassing Mother Hubbard’s
    Cupboard convenience store, to the Heatherton Apartments, and then within the
    area Brooks’s body was found. At 4:40 a.m., Thomas’s AT&T phone was in the
    area of Gervonte Williams’s address, where it was active until 4:54 a.m. and then
    again beginning at 7:13 a.m.
    Thomas was recorded making phone calls to his girlfriend from jail. In it, he
    denied killing anyone. He denied having been driving around in a van on the night
    of Brooks’s death. At one point he said either “gasoline wasn’t the plan” or
    “definitely wasn’t the plan.”
    The jury found Thomas guilty as charged, and he now appeals. Thomas
    contends there is not sufficient evidence to convict him of either offense.
    II. Scope and Standard of Review.
    We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for correction of
    errors at law. State v. Quinn, 
    691 N.W.2d 403
    , 407 (Iowa 2005).
    We uphold a verdict if substantial evidence supports it. “Evidence is
    substantial if it would convince a rational fact finder that the
    defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Substantial
    evidence must do more than raise suspicion or speculation. We
    consider all record evidence not just the evidence supporting guilt
    when we make sufficiency-of-the-evidence determinations.
    However, in making such determinations, we also view the “evidence
    in the light most favorable to the State, including legitimate
    inferences and presumptions that may fairly and reasonably be
    deduced from the record evidence.”
    
    Id. (citations omitted).
                                              9
    III. Discussion.
    Thomas contends there is no evidence Thomas participated in Brooks’s
    murder. He claims the convictions are based solely on speculation and the “State
    allegations of murder were based largely on the fact that the murder took place in
    his apartment.”
    It is true that a defendant’s conviction may not stand on speculation alone.
    State v. Howse, 
    875 N.W.2d 684
    , 688 (Iowa 2016) (“If evidence only raises
    ‘suspicion, speculation, or conjecture,’ it is not substantial evidence.” (citation
    omitted)). However, it is also true that direct evidence of guilt is not required. “The
    law does not distinguish between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence of a
    crime. A defendant may be convicted solely on circumstantial evidence if it is
    sufficiently compelling to convince a judge or jury of the defendant’s guilt beyond
    a reasonable doubt.” State v. Tipton, 
    897 N.W.2d 653
    , 692 (Iowa 2017) (citation
    omitted).
    The jury was instructed that to find Thomas guilty of first-degree murder the
    State had to prove:
    (1) On or about the 30th day of May, 2017, the defendant shot
    and inflicted blunt force injuries to Brandon Brooks.
    (2) Brandon Brooks died as a result of being shot and inflicted
    with blunt force injuries.
    (3) The defendant acted with malice aforethought.
    (4) The defendant acted willfully, deliberately, premeditatedly
    and with a specific intent to kill Brandon Brooks.
    Here, there is no doubt that Brooks died due to the combined effects of blunt
    force injuries and being shot in the arm at close range, which led to the shattering
    of the bone and heavy blood loss. As the jury was instructed, “If a person has the
    opportunity to deliberate and uses a dangerous weapon against another resulting
    10
    in death, you may . . . infer that the weapon was used with malice premeditation,
    and specific intent to kill.” The only real question presented to the jury was whether
    Thomas was the person responsible.
    While circumstantial, the evidence is sufficiently compelling to convince the
    jury of Thomas’s guilt. The case does not stand only on Brooks’s blood being
    found throughout Thomas’s apartment. Thomas’s statements to police that he did
    not leave his girlfriend’s apartment May 29 to 30 are belied by video of him at the
    Mother Hubbard’s Cupboard convenience store (where Brooks had been just
    minutes before and been picked up at Thomas’s request) with Williams and
    Jackson.    At 3:45 a.m., Thomas was seen at the Heatherton Apartments’
    storeroom, near Thomas’s own apartment, where Thomas removes a gas can from
    the storeroom. And Thomas was seen driving away in the van Williams had been
    driving earlier at the convenience store. It is the same van in which a hammer,
    bat, gas can, and Brooks’s blood were found near Williams’s residence. Thomas’s
    cellphone usage was traced from areas encompassing the convenience store, to
    the storeroom and his apartment, the area where Brooks’s body was found, and
    then Williams’s apartment.     In addition, Thomas owned the truck found near
    Williams’s residence—Brooks’s blood was present in the bed of the truck, and a
    lighter and ammunition were found in the truck. A similar truck was seen on video
    driving away from the area of Brooks’s body at 4:12 a.m. When found, the truck
    smelled strongly of cleaning agents, and a number of cleaning products were found
    in the truck. Both vehicles were found near Williams’s residence—a place police
    had previously had contact with Thomas and where Thomas’s cellphone was
    active at 4:54 a.m. and 7:15 a.m. Thomas’s statements to the police on May 30
    11
    included information about Brooks’s death that police had not shared with Thomas.
    There is an abundance of evidence from which the jury could find Thomas was
    responsible. See State v. Tucker, 
    810 N.W.2d 519
    , 520–21 (Iowa Ct. App. 2012)
    (concluding circumstantial evidence “provided ample evidence from which a jury
    could find that Tucker acted deliberately and with a fixed purpose or design to kill
    [the victim]”). We therefore affirm.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-1549

Filed Date: 2/5/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/5/2020