Post by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3[...]
Post by eohoeWhat is a "Hercules" anyway? It's a C-130 aircraft that made its 1st
flight in 1954, 1 year after the founding of MK ULTRA. It's also the
name of Howard Hughes' H-4 Hercules aka 'spruce goose'.
So there is NO connection among them. Got it.
The "Plus Ultra" is on the symbolic Pillars of Hercules on the Spanish
coat-of-arms. That is the metaphysical origin of MK ULTRA.
No, it's not.
Try again.
Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoeThe Catholic Church has been running a psy-op on me from day one like it
was me that killed their Cardinal Guise.
Wait. So now it isn't the Jews?
I wish you'd pick a religion and stick with it.
The Liberal Catholic church calls them the "Novus Ordo" Church which is
in recognition of the Masonic corruption within mainstream Catholicism
and we all know that the Masons are an arm of the Jews.
You alone know this. I'd ask for valid evidence for your claim,
but we all know you are unable to produce evidence that your delusions
are real. You only insist that they are.
I'm certain that to you, they seem very real. But the truth is,
they are not.
Post by eohoeFrancis is one of the biggest cheerleaders for the migrant hoards.
Maybe, he thinks the Jews are going to reward him by being allowed to
establish a Universal Catholic Church Theocracy.
Maybe it's all in your head and none of it is real. That is much
more plausible.
Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoeMy ex-Catholic wife and Vatican spy had a large scar on her face from
the time that she went thru the windshield of a car. Learned a lot
about treachery from that gal.
How does her having been in an accident connect to your
persecution complex? Please be specific.
Jeeeeez, you really are deficient in the Imagination department Aspie
bro.
That you lack imagination is not relevant to the discussion.
Post by eohoeThe MK ULTRA memes, which derive from the events surrounding the
end of the Valois line of French kings, would associate the facial scar
of my ex-wife with the Duke of Guise aka "scarface" who was killed on
orders of King Henry III.
So it has NO connection in reality. Got it.
Post by eohoeThat scarred face would be a constant reminder of those events as they
prosecuted their revenge plot against me.
No such plot exists in reality. It's your mental illness that
forces you to believe there is.
Post by eohoeThe extinction of the Valois line of kings has been appropriated by the
MK ULTRA deep state as a metaphore for the planned White Genocide, ergo
the forced migration, diversity tropes, etc.
Except that MK Ultra came about centuries later. This means there
is no connection in reality.
Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoeCatherine de' Medici's 'flying squadron' is alive and well.
How, in reality, could women from the 1500's be alive and well
today? Please limit your reply to reality. We don't need more examples
of your mental illness.
You aren't that dense but you sure do like to pretend you are.
Catherine de' Medici is the Mother Hen for todays so-called 'Liberated'
Females. Her "flying squad" has been replicated millions of times over
and it's all part of the deep state MK ULTRA conspiracy.
All the members of "Flying Squadron" are dead. They've been dead
for centuries.
Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoeThe Wars of Religion are still with us only this time they're up against
Serapis. I pity the fool.
Serapis, if he exists, certainly has proved himself a fool many
times over, according to your posts. He is so incompetent, he's never
able to cause any harm to the people you claim have done wrong. In my
case, your god, if he exists, keeps blessing me.
The LORD works in mysterious ways and certainly not in any way that you
would like him to.
Pretending your god is real, he's working in ways I really,
really like. Not only do I have a wonderful and loving family, and we
get to travel the world. Most of the family (the two oldest are on
their own now, with our oldest boy raising a family of his own) live
in a fairly nice home in North Hollywood.
As an aside, at one time Britney Spears was a neighbor. Not next
door, but two streets over. No, we didn't socialize with each other.
Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoehttp://eohoe.tripod.com/prisoner.html
You're a prisoner of your mental illness, which is truly sad.
You're an Aspie shit-poster.
Your projection fails you. Again.
Why do you keep using a means of avoidance that never works? What
is at the root of your apparent need to use projection so much?
Serious questions that deserve serious answers. Not that I expect
you will ever offer any. It's not your way.
Don't you have some garages to burglarize or young boys to be hanging
with instead of spurging your weasel words and LIES here on Usenet?
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 31 / 04-0202
Filed May 6, 2005
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
KENT BRADLEY WILLS,
Appellant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D.
Huppert, Judge.
Defendant appeals claiming ineffective assistance of
counsel. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Tricia Johnston,
Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney
General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and John Judisch, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
WIGGINS, Justice.
Kent Wills appeals his conviction for second-degree burglary
contending that an attached garage is a separate occupied structure
from that of the living quarters of the residence. In this appeal, we
must determine whether trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing
to move for judgment of acquittal on the basis there was insufficient
evidence to convict Wills of second-degree burglary when he entered an
attached garage of a residence when no persons were present in the
garage, but when persons were present in the living quarters; and (2)
failing to object to a jury instruction based on this same argument.
Because we find there was no legal basis for the motion for judgment
of acquittal or the objection to the jury instruction, Wills' trial
counsel was not ineffective. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of
the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Around 1 a.m., an Ankeny resident called the local police to report
that a car alarm sounded in the resident's neighborhood. The city
dispatched a police officer to the location. Observing nothing
unusual, the officer left the area, only to be stopped a couple of
blocks later by a person who informed the officer he had witnessed
someone running from the area of the car alarm. As the officer
started driving back to the area of the car alarm, he noticed a person
walking on the sidewalk. The officer asked the person, a minor, if he
had noticed anybody running from the area. The minor answered that he
had not. While the officer and another officer were speaking to the
minor, another resident of the neighborhood arrived in her car and
informed the officers that she had observed two people, one of whom
was heavy set with a blinking light on his back pocket, walking in the
area of her neighbor's residence. She observed the heavier-set
individual, later identified as Wills, enter her neighbor's attached
garage through an unlocked service door. She further observed a
smaller individual standing by a van parked in the neighbor's
driveway.
The officers eventually let the minor leave even though they found a
large amount of coins, a flashlight, and an electronic pocket
organizer in his pockets. After releasing the minor, the police
officers drove to the residence where the neighbor observed the two
suspicious people and woke the owner. The owner, his wife, and two
daughters were in the residence sleeping at the time. After a search
of his vehicles, the owner discovered change and an electronic pocket
organizer were missing from the vehicles. The owner's daughter
reported a diamond ring and some change were missing from her
vehicle. The officers then contacted the minor's parents, who
informed the officers the minor was with Wills. After the officers
questioned the minor again, he admitted his involvement in the theft
and implicated Wills in the burglary. Although Wills denied
involvement in the burglary, the officers arrested him.
The State filed a trial information charging Wills with second-degree
burglary. The State later amended the information to include two
additional charges of burglary in the third degree and using a
juvenile to commit an indictable offense.
The jury returned a verdict finding Wills guilty of the crimes of
burglary in the second degree, burglary in the third degree, and using
a juvenile to commit an indictable offense. Wills appeals his
conviction for second-degree burglary claiming ineffective assistance
of counsel.
II. Scope of Review.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are derived from the Sixth
Amendment of the United States Constitution. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-86, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2063-64, 80 L. Ed.
2d 674, 691-93 (1984). Our review for a claim involving violations of
the Constitution is de novo. State v. Fintel, 689 N.W.2d 95, 100
(Iowa 2004). We normally preserve ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
claims for postconviction relief actions. State v. Carter, 602 N.W.2d
818, 820 (Iowa 1999). However, we will address such claims on direct
appeal when the record is sufficient to permit a ruling. State v.
Artzer, 609 N.W.2d 526, 531 (Iowa 2000). The appellate record in the
present case is sufficient to allow us to address Wills' ineffective-
assistance-of-counsel claims on direct appeal.
In order for a defendant to succeed on a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel, the defendant must prove: (1) counsel failed
to perform an essential duty and (2) prejudice resulted. Id.
Prejudice results when "there is a reasonable probability that, but
for the counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding
would have been different." State v. Hopkins, 576 N.W.2d 374, 378
(Iowa 1998) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068,
80 L. Ed. 2d at 698). Wills' arguments also raise issues of statutory
interpretation, which we review for correction of errors at law.
State v. Wolford Corp., 689 N.W.2d 471, 473 (Iowa 2004).
III. Analysis.
To find Wills guilty of burglary in the second degree, the State had
to prove Wills perpetrated a burglary "in or upon an occupied
structure in which one or more persons are present . . . ." Iowa Code
§ 713.5(2) (2003) (emphasis added).
In this appeal, Wills first contends his trial counsel was ineffective
for failing to move for a judgment of acquittal on the basis there was
insufficient evidence to support a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage, there were persons present in or upon the occupied
structure. Wills concedes the garage was an occupied structure, but
argues the living quarters and the attached garage are separate and
independent occupied structures; therefore, the jury could not have
found there were people present in the attached garage at the time of
the burglary.
The Code defines an "occupied structure" as:
[A]ny building, structure, appurtenances to buildings and structures,
land, water or air vehicle, or similar place adapted for overnight
accommodation of persons, or occupied by persons for the purpose of
carrying on business or other activity therein, or for the storage or
safekeeping of anything of value. Such a structure is an "occupied
structure" whether or not a person is actually present.
Id. § 702.12.
Wills relies on State v. Smothers, 590 N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 1999), to
argue the garage and the living quarters are separate and independent
occupied structures. In Smothers, two separate and distinct
businesses connected by interior fire doors were operated in the same
structure. 590 N.W.2d at 723. We held the defendant committed two
burglaries by entering each business because "[t]he facility's
construction history and physical make-up demonstrate that the
portions are independent working units which constitute '[a]
combination of materials to form a construction for occupancy [or]
use.'" Id. Smothers is not at odds with the present case because the
living quarters and the garage are not separate or independent units
of the residence.
Our review of the record reveals the garage in question was a three-
car attached garage separated from the living quarters by a door. The
same roof covered the garage as the rest of the residence. The living
quarters surrounded the garage on two sides. It was structurally no
different from any other room in the residence.
The garage was a functional part of the residence. On the night of
the incident, the door was unlocked. The owner of the residence used
two stalls in the garage to park the family vehicles. The owner used
the third stall for his motorcycle. As such, the garage and the
living quarters are a single "structure" or "building" functioning as
an integral part of the family residence. Thus, the residence
including the garage is a single "occupied structure" under section
702.12. See, e.g., People v. Ingram, 48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 256 (Ct. App.
1995) (holding defendant's entry into an attached garage constituted
first-degree burglary because the garage was attached to the house;
therefore, burglary of the garage was burglary of an inhabited
dwelling house); People v. Cunningham, 637 N.E.2d 1247, 1252 (Ill.
App. Ct. 1994) (holding "ordinarily an attached garage is a 'dwelling'
because it is part of the structure in which the owner or occupant
lives"); State v. Lara, 587 P.2d 52, 53 (N.M. Ct. App. 1978) (holding
"burglary of the [attached] garage was burglary of the dwelling house
because the garage was a part of the structure used as living
quarters"); People v. Green, 141 A.D.2d 760, 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
(holding "[s]ince the garage in the present case was structurally part
of a building which was used for overnight lodging of various persons,
it must be considered as part of a dwelling"); White v. State, 630 S.W.
2d 340, 342 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982) (holding an attached garage under the
same roof as the home would be considered a habitation within the
purview of the penal code because the garage is a structure
appurtenant to and connected to the house); State v. Murbach, 843 P.2d
551, 553 (Wash. Ct. App 1993) (holding the definition of a dwelling
under Washington's burglary statute included an attached garage).
Had Wills' trial counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal on the
basis there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that at the
time Wills entered the garage there were no persons present in or upon
the occupied structure, it would have been overruled by the court
because the owner and his family were present in the residence at the
time of the burglary.
Wills also claims his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to
the jury instruction used by the district court on the same ground;
that the living quarters were a separate and independent occupied
structure from the attached garage. The instruction as given stated:
The State must prove all of the following elements of Burglary in the
Second Degree as to Count I:
1. On or about the 12th day of August, 2003, the defendant or someone
he aided and abetted broke into or entered the residence at . . . .
2. The residence at . . . was an occupied structure as defined in
Instruction No. 29.
3. The defendant or the person he aided and abetted did not have
permission or authority to break into the residence at . . . .
4. The defendant or the person he aided and abetted did so with the
specific intent to commit a theft therein.
5. During the incident persons were present in or upon the occupied
structure.
If the State has proved all of the elements, the defendant is guilty
of Burglary in the Second Degree. If the State has failed to prove
any of the elements, the defendant is not guilty of Burglary in the
Second Degree and you will then consider the charge of Attempted
Burglary in the Second Degree explained in Instruction No. 21.
(Emphasis added.)
Wills' claim is without merit. As we have discussed, the residence is
the one and only "occupied structure" under the facts of this case.
Had Wills' trial counsel made this objection to the instruction, it
would have been overruled.
Therefore, Wills' trial counsel is not ineffective for failing to move
for a judgment of acquittal or objecting to the instruction because
there was no legal basis for the motion or objection. See State v.
Hochmuth, 585 N.W.2d 234, 238 (Iowa 1998) (holding trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise an issue that has no merit).
IV. Disposition.
We affirm the judgment of the district court because Wills' trial
counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise meritless issues.
AFFIRMED.
"We live in Iowa most of the year, but own a vacation home in
Arkansas. If my sig says "WOOOO PIG SOOIE!!!" you know I'm in
Arkansas. .... I teach American History to middle school children.
Lindsay is a Psychologist with the Fifth Judicial District in Iowa. We
both own rental properties around Des Moines, Iowa."
-Kentie posting to alt.friends 1/11/05
