Summary
finding sufficient evidence to support a charge of theft by taking under section 714.1 where the defendant "took possession or control" of the victim's money by uttering unauthorized checks from the victim's account
Summary of this case from State v. SantanaOpinion
No. 3-109 / 01-1812
Filed March 26, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, R. David Fahey, Judge.
Rice appeals from his conviction of theft in the first degree. AFFIRMED.
Clemens Erdahl, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha Boesen, Assistant Attorney General, Patrick Jackson, County Attorney, and Michael Bennett, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Mahan and Hecht, JJ.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
The State charged Robert Murphy with theft after $172,000 of checks and cash withdrawals from Dorothy Schramm's bank accounts were traced to corresponding deposits into a corporate account controlled by Robert Murphy. At his arraignment, Murphy acknowledged that his true name was Wilfred F. Rice. Rice pled not guilty and waived his right to a jury trial.
The case against Rice is best summarized in the following excerpt from the State's written closing argument:
Defendant, Wilfred F. Rice, moved to Burlington, Iowa in early 1993, leaving the practice of law in Chicago, Illinois and assuming the name of Robert Murphy, a former friend and client. In 1993, Defendant opened a checking account at Burlington Bank and Trust under the name PMC, LTD. listing Robert Murphy as the sole signatory. Defendant moved into the residence of Dorothy Schramm at 2700 S. Main in Burlington, Iowa in 1995 until his arrest in July of 2000. From March 1993 through December of 1999, $85,250.00 in checks were written to PMC, LTD. from Dorothy Schramm's checking account at Burlington Bank and Trust, which were listed in Mrs. Schramm's checking ledger as gifts and payments to other payees. In addition to these checks, $86,802.00 in funds were withdrawn from Dorothy Schramm's account with corresponding deposits made in Defendant's PMC, LTD. checking account in 1998 through June of 2000. Mrs. Schramm testified that she had never heard of PMC, LTD. prior to Defendant's arrest, never issued any checks to PMC, LTD. and never made any gifts of checks to the Defendant during their relationship. Mrs. Schramm also did not know the defendant by any other name than Robert Murphy prior to his arrest in July 2000.
Rice denied taking any of Schramm's money without her knowledge or consent. He claimed Schramm issued checks to him as gifts, reimbursement, and compensation for the care he provided for her. Rice also claimed that Schramm authorized transfers between her trust and checking account and in doing so implicitly authorized the checks written to PMC, LTD. Rice explained the discrepancy between Schramm's check registry and corresponding checks as Schramm's means of concealing these transactions from her former secretary, who Schramm regarded as a gossip.
The trial court, citing overwhelming circumstantial evidence implicating Rice in the theft of Schramm's money, found Rice guilty as charged. Judgment and sentence were subsequently entered in accordance with the verdict resulting in this appeal.
On appeal, Rice challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court's guilty verdict. He also challenges the sufficiency of the trial court's findings of fact and claims the resulting due process violations necessitate a new trial. In addition, Rice claims he was denied effective assistance of trial court.
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence.
We initially reject the State's claim that Rice failed to preserve error on this issue. See State v. Abbas, 561 N.W.2d 72, 74 (Iowa 1997) (holding when a criminal case is tried to the court, a defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal irrespective of whether a motion for judgment of acquittal was previously made).
"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." Abbas, 561 N.W.2d at 74. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State when determining whether there was substantial evidence. Id. "Substantial evidence means such evidence as could convince a rational trier of fact the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. In the substantial evidence analysis, we consider all of the evidence in the record, not just the evidence supporting a finding of guilt. Id.
Rice was charged with one count of theft by taking as a continuing offense from 1998-2000. Under the taking alternative a theft occurs when:
A person takes possession or control of the property of another, or property in the possession of another, with the intent to deprive the other thereof.
Iowa Code § 714.1(1) (2001). If the value of property stolen exceeds $10,000, the offense is theft in the first degree. Iowa Code § 714.2(1).
According to the State's theory, Rice took possession or control of Schramm's money by forging Schramm's signature on checks payable to PMC, LTD., inserting PMC, LTD. as payee on checks Schramm intended as payments to others, forging Schramm's signature and endorsement on checks Schramm purportedly issued to herself, and submitting unauthorized written requests from Schramm for the transfer of funds from her trust account to her checking account. As noted earlier, the State also claimed that Schramm did not intend to give Rice any money, nor did she consent to any of the relevant banking transactions.
Rice's challenge to the sufficiency of the State's evidence is premised on the absence of evidence supporting the State's claim that he forged or otherwise altered checks or the fund transfer requests cited by the State. We disagree.
Schramm testified that she did not intend to give Rice any money. She also testified that she did not authorize or issue any checks payable to PMC, LTD. and that the signatures on those checks were not authentic. Rice's argument also ignores the discovery of Schramm's handwriting examples in his briefcase. Contrary to Rice's claim, we find this evidence sufficient to support the trial court's findings on the disputed elements of the State's theft by taking theory. We accordingly affirm on this issue.
III. Sufficiency of Trial Court's Findings.
In division two of his brief, Rice argues:
The failure of the court to make specific findings regarding the absence of forgery was an error which denied the defendant's right to due process and effective representation of counsel.
In order to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the trial court's findings of fact, a defendant must file a motion for a new trial seeking amendment or enlargement of the court's findings and conclusions. State v. Miles, 346 N.W.2d 517, 519 (Iowa 1984). Although Rice filed a motion for new trial, the grounds relied on were the trial court's alleged evidentiary error concerning Schramm's competence to testify and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict. In the absence of any allegation concerning the sufficiency of the trial court's findings of fact or conclusions of law, we conclude Rice's motion for a new trial was not sufficient to preserve error on this issue. Id.
With the exception of Rice's ineffective assistance of counsel claims, we find the remaining issues raised on direct appeal have either been waived or are effectively resolved by the foregoing. Rice's ineffective assistance of counsel claims are preserved for postconviction proceedings.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.