Case Title: State v. Monaco

Citation: 230 N.W.2d 485

Docket Number: 56937

State: iowa

Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Date: 1975-06-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
230 N.W.2d 485 (1975) STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Edward MONACO, Appellant. No. 56937. Supreme Court of Iowa. June 25, 1975. Philip F. Miller, Des Moines, for appellant. Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Raymond W. Sullins and Fred M. Haskins, Asst. Attys. Gen., Ray A. Fenton, County Atty., and Joseph Beck, Asst. County Atty., for appellee. Submitted to MOORE, C. J., and RAWLINGS, LeGRAND, UHLENHOPP, and REYNOLDSON, JJ. RAWLINGS, Justice. By a three count information defendant, Edward Monaco, was charged with two counts of delivering a controlled substance and one count of possessing a controlled substance with intent to deliver same in violation of The Code 1973, Section 204.401(1). Subsequently, defendant entered a guilty plea to Count I of said information, i. e., delivery of a controlled substance August 20, 1973. On his appeal from judgment attendantly entered we affirm. Defendant requested an accommodation hearing which commenced November 5, 1973. Trial court reserved ruling thereon until November 30, 1973. On that date, *486 before entry of adjudication, defendant requested a deferred judgment or suspended sentence (probation) even if the court should find he had effected a non-accommodation delivery. In support thereof defendant contended the 1973 Session of the Sixty-Fifth General Assembly, Chapter 295, Section 1 (The Code 1975, Section 789A.1), precluding probation in connection with the above stated offense, denied him equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and imposed cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Trial court subsequently held defendant failed to prove an accommodation delivery. His constitutionally-based objections to Code § 789 A. 1 were overruled and his application for probation was denied. Judgment was accordingly entered. In support of a reversal defendant contends trial court erred in (1) overruling his constitutionally-based objections to Code § 789 A. 1 and denying his application for probation; (2) permitting the State to elicit testimony from witnesses at the accommodation hearing regarding defendant's possession and sales of controlled substances subsequent in time and unrelated to the instantly involved August 20, 1973 offense; (3) finding delivery of the controlled substance to which defendant pled guilty was not an accommodation delivery. These assignments will be considered in the order presented. I. Defendant's first contention, supra, regarding denial of probation must be resolved adverse to him under our holding in State v. Hall, 227 N.W.2d 192, 194-195 (Iowa 1975). This means defendant's first assigned error is without merit. II. In course of the above noted accommodation hearing the county attorney was permitted, over defense counsel's repeated objections, to elicit testimony regarding Code § 204.401(1) violations purportedly committed by defendant after commission of the aforesaid August 20, 1973 offense. In this vein the record discloses these questions asked by the prosecutor and defendant's answers thereto: The State also called two witnesses who testified as to Code § 204.401(1) violations allegedly committed by defendant after August 20, 1973. In relevant part § 204.410 says: As best determinable defendant maintains the italicized portion of the above enactment prohibits introduction of testimony by the State regarding offenses *487 claimed to have been committed by defendant subsequent in time to the offense or offenses directly involved. It is resultantly argued defendant was denied a fair accommodation hearing because of prejudice attendant upon his repeated invocation of the Fifth Amendment. This court has never heretofore been called upon to resolve the above contention nor is it necessary to now do so. The record before us reveals trial court, in resolving the accommodation issue, stated in material part: At the outset we have held that where a cause is tried absent a jury and the court, in making findings of fact, specifically discards certain testimony, no error ordinarily attends the admission thereof in evidence. See In Interest of Osborn, 220 N.W.2d 632, 634 (Iowa 1974); Bellew v. Iowa State Highway Commission, 171 N.W.2d 284, 291 (Iowa 1969). See also State v. Waterman, 217 N.W.2d 621, 623 (Iowa 1974). Defendant's second assigned error is without substance. III. Testimony in addition to that above set forth, adduced at the accommodation hearing, discloses Officer Howard Fisher was escorted to defendant's residence August 20, 1973, by two juveniles. Defendant and these boys had apparently been friends for about six months. Fisher then purchased an ounce of marijuana from defendant at the "going price" of $15. Defendant contends an accommodation sale was shown by clear and convincing evidence. In support thereof he alludes to his testimony that he had paid $20 for the marijuana delivered to Fisher for $15 and such delivery was effected as an accommodation to his two young friends. Although this testimony stood uncontradicted trial court was not obliged to accept it as a verity. See State v. Deanda, 218 N.W.2d 649, 652 (Iowa 1974); State v. Engeman, 217 N.W.2d 638, 639 (Iowa 1974); State v. McGranahan, 206 N.W.2d 88, 93 (Iowa 1973). Our examination of the record reveals no basis upon which to hold trial court erred in finding there was a nonaccommodation sale by defendant to Officer Fisher. Affirmed.