Post by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3[...]
Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoeMore #2 from the great prevaricator.
You didn't post that. I did.
The Oxford Dictionary word of the year is "Toxic" which pretty much sums
you up, maybe they had you in mind when they decided on it.
It's nice that you believe I am so important they know about me
and think I am worthy of any sort of honor. But the reality you HATE
is that I am not. There is no realistic way I was a factor.
I didn't say that they did, I said "maybe". Big difference. You want to
conflate it into something entirely differently but it ain't happening,
MORON.
In order for your "maybe" to have any validity, you must believe
others see me as being so important. There is no way around this.
So, did you lie when you offered the possibility, or are you
lying when you claim you did not? I'll accept either answer, but
expect you'll play some sort of avoidance game.
You're such a troublesome bore. You completely missed the facetious
element but with your Aspie syndrome that's probably to be expected.
Your continued lying is not benefiting you.
Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3I do appreciate your providing more evidence that your mental
illness makes it very difficult for you to accept reality. Yes, you
have already offered a sizable amount of evidence for this, but more
doesn't hurt.
Your projection isn't helping you any.
It is most fortunate I'm not projecting. Your posts make it clear
you have a mental illness. I am certain you believe your claims, but
they are a result of your mental illness. Nothing more.
Maybe they did have you in mind when they chose that word seeing as
you're so TOXIC in fact you could be the poster boy for TOXIC.
Your insults will never change reality.
Defining reality as it pertains to you requires it.
Post by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoeAt at any rate, I see no need for rebuttal of your contrived,
disfunctional, lying shit posting.
It is most fortunate that, in reality, I do not offer such.
There, you just did it again.
Your constant lying is not the benefit you believe it to be.
Stock Aspie routine from you, MORON.
Ibid.
You're a waste of electrons.
Post by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoeYou're a Toxic Moron, albeit
sometimes useful Idiot although your utility is far outweighed by the
stench of your absurd contrivances.
I would need to first offer absurd contrivances. It is sad that
you do not understand this. And even more sad that you are reduced to
lying to claim that I have done so.
You're lying again. Your lying is a well established fact here on
"How can you tell Wills is lying?
His lips are moving and his hand is near a computer keyboard."
Doc, 4/9/08
Quoting a man who was placed into a long term mental health care
facility may not be the wisest of moves.
What's the proof of that?
It is simple logic. Someone who was placed in a long term mental
health care facility isn't going to be a credible source. As such,
your doing so may not be the wisest of moves.
Your slide is moronic. Now answer the question, what's the proof that
Doc was committed.
Post by KWills Shill #3I realize you'll never attend a Mensa meeting, but you can't be as
intellectually low as you are trying to present.
Now play an avoidance game. You're going to anyway.
HA HA HA HA ROTFLMAO, my sides
Post by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoeI could fill several pages with the cheap manipulations you have plied
over the years but it would be mostly redundant as in one form or
another it's already been done, if not by me, by other posters here on
Usenet who've been unfortunate enough to have had to endure your verbal
assaults.
I am fairly certain Usenet is a written, not spoken, medium. I
have met some people from Usenet in real life, and spoken with them.
At no point has anyone claimed I verbally assaulted them as far as I
know.
The term verbal assault is use to describe either oral or written
speech, MORON.
Since when? And how does anything I write, or say, create an
apprehension in you, or anyone else, of an imminent harmful contact?
Please be specific when you answer
"Verbal abuse (verbal attack or verbal assault) is when a person
forcefully criticizes, insults, or denounces someone else.[1]
Characterized by underlying anger and hostility, it is a destructive
form of communication intended to harm the self-concept of the other
person and produce negative emotions."
Try and weasel your way out of that one.
Your failure to answer the question I asked is noted.
I do appreciate that you have provided the undeniable evidence
that you lied about my committing any verbal assault. By the
definition you've provided, you've proved your claim a lie.
What part of that definition do you not understand because you're guilty
as sin.
Post by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Fortunately, you will produce the valid, verifiable evidence that
any of them have. If you're lying, you will not offer evidence that
anyone I met from Usenet claimed to have endured my verbal assaults.
There will be no evidence to produce.
You're a shit poster, that's what you do.
Your default admission that you lied is noted, accepted and
appreciated. Had your claim had any validity to it, you would have
produced the requested evidence for review.
There is no default admission. Your rules of logic apply only in your
Aspie addled brain, not in real life, you're a MORON.
Your continued admission that you lied is noted, accepted and
appreciated. Continue admitting this if you must. But do so knowing
it's not required.
The Aspie spurges another of his default routines.
Post by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Since you have admitted, by default, that you lied, please
explain why you thought lying would benefit you. I really do want to
know. No, I don't expect you will ever offer anything close to an
honest answer.
You're a MORON.
And I'm not even psychic.
You're barely human
Post by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoeBut hey, Saudi Arabia is cutting back its oil production and that means
only one thing, the price of oil is going up.
Huh. It was only $3.15/gallon in NoHo when I got gas yesterday.
Maybe news of the decrease in production hadn't yet gotten out. It's
possible the price will be higher today.
You may be in NoHo now, but you were on probation back in Iowa and
Arkansas at least up until 2009. Stop your lying Garage Burglar.
Even if I were in Iowa and/or Arkansas in 2009, that would have
no bearing on your claim about current or future oil prices.
Your attempt at diversion is quite telling.
Looks like you're the one trying to divert from your 2 felony
convictions and subsequent Probation up until 2009 which puts the lie to
your SoCal alibi.
You already know I've been in the LA area since 1998. This is
very old news at this point.
When I feel like blowing some cash I'll get me a PI and who'll nail your
ass to the wall
Post by KWills Shill #3I do appreciate your continued avoidance regarding your lying
about your fictional future oil money.
What would you know about my financial situation? Zilch, but you do
keep on spurging your fantasies, MORON.
Post by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoeYou better hope the oil companies don't drill on our property
At this point, it's safe to presume you have no such property.
You've been making the same claim for a few years, with NOTHING to
show for it.
I get a crop check every year.
So, you've had the mythical money for some time. Odd that you've
never began the k00k suit you've been threatening for years. It's
almost as if you've been lying about it the whole time.
Nothing mythical about that, we grow crops, I get a check. Entirely
separate from any future royalties I'm going to receive once the oil
companies drill.
Uh huh.
Yeah & when they drill I'm going to devote my 1st Royalty check to
hiring me an attorney to shut you down.
Post by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoebecause if they do I'll be looking
to slap you with a libel lawsuit and whatever else my lawyers can find
to charge you with.
Whereas I've not committed any libel, your continued empty
threats mean nothing. Had I committed even one act of libel, you would
have been able to point it out any of the number of times you've been
asked. Since you have been unable each and every time, it's clear I've
yet to commit any actionable libel.
I'm not playing this out over Usenet, MORON.
You mean you've been caught in a lie and are DESPERATE to avoid
dealing with the truth.
Only a fool would contaminate his lawsuit by playing it out on Usenet.
You have no lawsuit to contaminate. None. You've provided the
absolute and undeniable evidence of this yourself.
You're the legal genius who lost his Felony conviction appeal to the
Iowa Supreme Court giving me legal advice. HA HA HA HA HA
Supreme Court of Iowa.
STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Kent Bradley WILLS, Appellant.
No.04-0202.
Decided: May 06, 2005
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.
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, 40 Cal.App.4th 1397, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 256 (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, 265 Ill.App.3d 3, 202 Ill.Dec. 511, 637
N.E.2d 1247, 1252 (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, 92 N.M. 274, 587 P.2d 52, 53
(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, 529
N.Y.S.2d 852 (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, 68 Wash.App. 509, 843 P.2d 551, 553 (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.
WIGGINS, Justice.
Post by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Again you prove yourself to really be the Pharaoh of Failure.
That's the mantra you losers use when in fact I'm winning.
Odd that you've yet to win, if your posts are an accurate
indication.
You have no idea, doesn't stop you from shit posting though, does it?
You do post a lot of shit. I doubt anything I can do will stop
it.
Think harder.
Post by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoeHappy Holidays Moron
BTW, the latest, well within in the past month and a half or so, from
NASA are pics from Jupiter showing a giant DOLPHIN moving thru the clouds.
https://www.iflscience.com/space/theres-a-dolphin-swimming-through-jupiters-clouds-in-these-images-from-nasas-juno-spacecraft/
Pareidolia isn't anything new. You may see Yoda riding a Tauntaun
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBE00pQWEAATuSM.jpg
Post by eohoeThat goes back to what I was talking about in June about the demise of
the Valois French kings. Serapis rules.
How so? I admit my knowledge of 16th century French monarchs is
wanting, but I'm not aware of any connection between them and
dolphins.
Dauphin (dolphin) was the title give to the heir apparent to the throne
of France. You don't know much, do you?
As I pointed out, my knowledge of 16th century French monarchs is
wanting.
Trying to insult someone based on what they've openly admitted
only makes you look more the fool than you typically do.
Just pointing out the obvious.
No, you engaged in "verbal assault" according to the definition
you posted. You have further proved you really are as mentally ill as
you present.
Well, like you say, truth is a defense.
Post by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3I do know the House of Valois was to have a history of mental
illness.
"Was to have," you mean something they were supposed to have but never did?
History records they did. But I have no first hand knowledge of
it.
Machiavellian politics employs dirty tricks like poison to simulate
mental illness to gain unfair advantage. Same as the use of Microwave
http://eohoe.tripod.com/micro.htm
Again, no one who does not share your mental illness will ever
understand your list.
Your projection just proves what a MORON you are.
Post by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoeMankind is potentially 30 years away from total annihilation and this
society thinks they can play hard-ball with me.
As a whole, society doesn't care about you.
They should.
Post by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoeThere's going to be
lots of gnashing of teeth and pulling out of hair when the real SHTF.
But it never will. Not because of you, certainly.
It's happening, one way or the other.
Post by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3This would add credibility to your claim of being a
descendant.
HA HA HA HA HA, your Aspie projection is showing.
Your continued lying is not a benefit.
Hey, you're the one going around calling everyone else "mentally ill",
obviously it's your Aspie projection.
You are mentally ill.
Even if I had Asperger's, it's not a mental illness, so your
lying has failed there as well.
Your Verbal Assaults never cease, do they MORON?
Post by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoehttp://eohoe.tripod.com/images/nibor.jpg
Your photo editing skills should have improved. But, somehow,
they've gotten worse.
I don't have any photo editing stuff on my HD and I can't install my
older PS because I need to replace by CD-RW.
As the link I posted shows, your image, linked above, was edited.
No point in trying to lie about it, though you do. Odd that.
I wasn't denying that it was, obviously.
You were denying it. This is obvious.
What's obvious is you don't understand what I stated there.
Post by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d5/45/cb/d545cbe53f5c6f9a3f3fbbb54149cac3.jpg
Or was your image done early in your photo editing pursuits?
It's kind of like a christmas present, it's the thought that counts.
It's there to remind you of the law suit my lawyers are going to slap
you with for Libel.
But, as you've admitted by default,
Admission by default, is that like getting admitted to what ever school
I want to attend without filing any application forms? You're a MORON.
Your dishonesty shines through again.
There is no Admission by Default. You're manipulative and delusional
and your s*** don't work except in your little deranged mind.
Post by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3I've never libeled you.
Not just libel but actionable libel.
Not so. You've provide the proof of this yourself each time you
show you can't cite just one example.
I'm not going to play poker with you online. You'd fold if you had any
sense which of course you don't.
Post by KWills Shill #3Post by eohoePost by KWills Shill #3What
you fail to understand is that the truth is an excellent defense
against a charge of libel. You consistently prove you are mentally
ill. Your posts certainly give reason to believe you fail at most
everything you attempt.
More talking out of your ass, Kentie.
So, you're back to pet names for me. Way to engage in "verbal
assault" per the definition you provided above.
I don't think that qualifies per the definition, Kentie. Well, maybe a
little but you're just so damned "toxic" it's hard not to.
--
Donate today for a Cosmic future.
https://www.gofundme.com/5e3pab9w
