Summary
holding that defendant's use of a baseball bat against two unarmed victims was an unreasonable use of force
Summary of this case from United States v. RobisonOpinion
No. 4-503 / 03-1488.
September 9, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Tama County, Thomas M. Horan, Judge.
Daniel Ditmarson appeals from the judgment and sentence entered upon his conviction for two counts of willful injury causing serious injury. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Tricia Johnston, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Daniel Ditmarson, Anamosa, appellant pro se.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sharon Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Brent Heeren, County Attorney, and Richard Vander Mey, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Daniel Ditmarson appeals from the judgment and sentence entered upon his conviction for two counts of willful injury causing serious injury in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.4(1) and 702.18 (2003). He claims the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.
I. Background Facts Proceedings.
In the early morning hours of April 13, 2003, a drinking party was underway at a residence located in Toledo, Tama County, Iowa. After the drinking party had been in progress for some time, Ditmarson arrived at the party. Ditmarson had a few beers and became verbally abusive to Dawn Poweshiek, the owner of the residence. Dawn complained to Jeremy Poweshiek, her son, and his friend, Dustin Naniot. Jeremy and Dustin attempted to persuade Ditmarson to leave the premises. When Ditmarson refused to leave, both Jeremy and Dustin struck Ditmarson with their fists. Ditmarson eventually left the premises.
A few hours later, after the party had broken up, Ditmarson returned to the premises carrying a baseball bat. Jeremy and Dustin approached Ditmarson to inquire as to why he had returned with a baseball bat. Ditmarson proceeded to intentionally strike Dustin in the head and body with the baseball bat, knocking him to the ground. Ditmarson then struck Jeremy in the head and body, also knocking him to the ground. Dustin and Jeremy were taken to the emergency room. Both sustained serious injuries that resulted in permanent disfigurement.
Ditmarson was charged with two counts of willful injury causing serious injury. He waived his right to a jury trial, and a bench trial commenced on July 21, 2003. Ditmarson's defense was justification. The trial court rejected his defense, and he was convicted. He was subsequently sentenced to serve two indeterminate terms of ten years, set to run concurrently. Ditmarson appeals.
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence.
We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. "A district court's finding of guilt is binding upon us unless we find there was not substantial evidence in the record to support such a finding." State v. Abbas, 561 N.W.2d 72, 74 (Iowa 1997). We give consideration to all of the evidence, not just that supporting the verdict, and view such evidence in the light most favorable to the State. State v. Adney, 639 N.W.2d 246, 250 (Iowa Ct.App. 2001). We will uphold a verdict if substantial evidence supports it. State v. Heard, 636 N.W.2d 227, 229 (Iowa 2001). Evidence is substantial if it would convince a rational fact finder that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
Ditmarson claims there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions of willful injury causing serious injury. He avers the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt he acted without justification. Alternatively, Ditmarson argues the evidence was insufficient to prove Dustin and Jeremy sustained serious injuries.
We find there is sufficient evidence in the record to support Ditmarson's conviction. "A person is justified in the use of reasonable force when the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend oneself or another from any imminent use of unlawful force." Iowa Code § 704.3. When the defense is raised, the burden rests on the State to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Rubino, 602 N.W.2d 558, 565 (Iowa 1999). The defense is not available if the State proves the force used by the defendant was unreasonable. Id.
While some evidence of justification exists in the record, that evidence is based solely on Ditmarson's testimony. The remaining testimony indicates Ditmarson repeatedly struck two unarmed victims with a wooden baseball bat. We find there is sufficient evidence in the record to conclude Ditmarson acted without justification because the amount of force he used was unreasonable.
We further find Ditmarson's argument that the two victims did not sustain serious injuries to be without merit. In order to prove willful injury causing serious injury, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the injuries sustained by the victims were serious. Iowa Code § 708.4(1). A bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death is a serious injury. Iowa Code § 702.18(1)(b). The State presented testimony from two medical experts who testified as to the nature and severity of the victims' injuries. Both witnesses agreed the injuries sustained by the victims were life threatening and created a substantial risk of death. No contrary testimony was presented. Thus, we find there was sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that both victims sustained serious injuries.
III. Ineffective Assistance.
Our review of an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel is de novo. State v. Bergmann, 600 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 1999). To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) the attorney failed to perform an essential duty and (2) prejudice resulted to the extent it denied the defendant a fair trial. State v. Biddle, 652 N.W.2d 191, 203 (Iowa 2002). Ditmarson claims he received ineffective assistance due to defense counsel's failure to object to alleged prior bad acts evidence and prosecutorial misconduct. He also claims his counsel was ineffective for failing to present additional witnesses to support his defense of justification during trial. Ditmarson raises these and additional issues in his pro se brief.
Ordinarily we preserve claims of ineffective assistance of counsel raised on direct appeal for postconviction proceedings to allow full development of the facts surrounding counsel's conduct. State v. Atley, 564 N.W.2d 817, 833 (Iowa 1997). "Even a lawyer is entitled to his day in court, especially when his professional reputation is impugned." State v. Coil, 264 N.W.2d 293, 296 (Iowa 1978). We determine Ditmarson's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel should be preserved for possible postconviction proceedings. We affirm Ditmarson's conviction and sentence.