Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-16-01558/USCOURTS-ca8-16-01558-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Lawan Postley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1558

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Timothy Lawan Postley

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

 Submitted: September 23, 2016

 Filed: October 11, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Lawan Postley appeals from the district court’s1

 decision revoking his

supervised release and imposing a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment for a Grade

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 16-1558 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/11/2016 Entry ID: 4457154 
A violation of burglary in the second degree and other Grade C violations. He argues

that the district court clearly erred in finding he committed second-degree burglary.

As a result of this clear error, it allegedly abused its discretion by imposing a 30-

month sentence. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

On December 4, 2015, police officers responded to a report of a disturbance at

Kima Mali’s apartment in Cedar Rapids, Iowa and arrested Postley for second-degree

burglary.2

 Mali, Postley’s ex-girlfriend, told officers that Postley came to her

apartment, knocked on her door, and rang her doorbell for about an hour before

breaking the deadbolt and forcing his way into her apartment. Once inside, he found

Mali in her bedroom, slapped her, and began to choke her. After Mali threatened to

call the police, Postley fled. Mali also disclosed that she and Postley had broken up

and that he did not reside with her.

During the police interview with Mali, Postley returned to the apartment, and

officers arrested him, placed him in the back of the squad car, and read him his

Miranda rights. He admitted that he and Mali had dated but had broken up about nine

months earlier. He told officers that he previously lived with Mali while they were

together but had given back the apartment key when he moved out. Postley claimed

that he was at the apartment that night because Mali called and asked him to come. 

After changing his story about his whereabouts that evening, Postley refused to

answer any further questions. At the time, Postley was on supervised release.

At his revocation hearing, Postley admitted to Grade C violations. He conceded

that he failed to participate in substance abuse testing, did not comply with the

instructions of his probation officer, and refused to pay the costs of his remote

alcohol-testing program. He also admitted that he assaulted and choked Mali, but he

2

On January 25, 2016, the Linn County District Attorney dismissed the seconddegree burglary charge against Postley after Mali told the prosecutor that she would

not honor a subpoena or cooperate with authorities.

-2-

Appellate Case: 16-1558 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/11/2016 Entry ID: 4457154 
denied committing burglary in the second degree, a Grade A violation. Postley argued

that because he was living with Mali at the time of the incident, he did not commit

second-degree burglary. 

To buttress these claims, Postley called his mother and his sister to testify at the

revocation hearing. They both testified that Mali was Postley’s girlfriend and that

Postley often would stay at Mali’s apartment and even had a key. However, when

Postley’s mother went to retrieve his belongings after his arrest, she admitted that the

key to Mali’s apartment was not on Postley’s key ring. 

The Government called Postley’s probation officer, who testified that Postley

reported residing with his mother and never reported residing with Mali. Furthermore,

the probation officer testified that Postley admitted that Mali was an ex-girlfriend and

that he was dating a different woman. Finally, the probation officer testified that he

reviewed the recorded phone calls Postley made from jail to Mali. During those calls,

Mali said she was being evicted and that “[Postley] should have just gone home.” 

Postley also repeatedly asked Mali to drop the burglary charges against him during

these calls.

 After reviewing the evidence, the district court concluded by a preponderance

of the evidence that Postley committed burglary in the second degree and revoked his

supervised release. It did not find the testimony of Postley’s mother and sister

credible, noted Postley’s own admissions to law enforcement officers, and reasoned

that if Postley really had permission and a key, he would not have needed to kick

down Mali’s apartment door. With the burglary finding and the admitted Grade C

violations, Postley’s sentencing guideline range was 27 to 33 months, and the district

court sentenced him to 30 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Postley argues that the

district court clearly erred in finding he committed second-degree robbery and, as a

result, abused its discretion in sentencing him to 30 months’ imprisonment.

-3-

Appellate Case: 16-1558 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/11/2016 Entry ID: 4457154 
We review a district court’s “underlying factual findings as to whether a

violation occurred for clear error” and its revocation decision for an abuse of

discretion. United States v. Rhone, 647 F.3d 777, 779 (8th Cir. 2011) (quotations

omitted). However, if the district court’s finding of fact is based on a credibility

determination, we note that the standard is even higher, as “[w]itness credibility is

quintessentially a judgment call and virtually unassailable on appeal.” United States

v. Cates, 613 F.3d 856, 858 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Bolden, 596 F.3d

976, 982 (8th Cir. 2010)). And as is the case with initial sentencing proceedings, we

review a district court’s sentence on revocation of supervised release for substantive

reasonableness, United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2011), and

accord a sentence “within the advisory guideline range . . . a presumption of

reasonableness,” United States v. Scales, 735 F.3d 1048, 1052 (8th Cir. 2013)

(quotations omitted). In this case, “[i]t is the defendant’s burden to rebut the

presumption and to show that the sentence should have been lower.” United States

v. Goodale, 738 F.3d 917, 926 (8th Cir. 2013) (quotations omitted). 

Postley’s principal argument is that the district court clearly erred in finding that

he committed second-degree burglary under Iowa law. Iowa Code section 713.5

defines burglary in the second degree as “perpetrating a burglary . . . in which . . . a

bodily injury results to any person,” and Iowa Code section 713.1 defines burglary:

Any person, having the intent to commit a felony, assault or theft therein,

who, having no right, license or privilege to do so, enters an occupied

structure, such occupied structure not being open to the public, or who

remains therein after it is closed to the public or after the person’s right,

license or privilege to be there has expired, or any person having such

intent who breaks an occupied structure, commits burglary.

Postley claims that because he had a “right, license or privilege” to enter into

Mali’s apartment, he did not commit burglary in the second degree. Postley relies on

State v. Hagedorn, 679 N.W.2d 666 (Iowa 2004), for this argument. There, the Iowa

-4-

Appellate Case: 16-1558 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/11/2016 Entry ID: 4457154 
Supreme Court found that the defendant had no possessory or occupancy interest in

the residence of his estranged wife because he no longer resided at the residence, his

personal belongings had been set outside, he had been told multiple times that he was

not welcome, and he knew the locks had been changed. Id. at 671. Postley claims

that the application of Hagedorn requires reversing the district court’s finding of fact. 

However, we see no clear error in the district court’s finding that Postley committed

burglary in the second degree.

As in Hagedorn, the evidence in this case demonstrates that Postley did not

have a “right, license or privilege” to enter Mali’s apartment the night of the assault. 

Postley’s probation officer had no record that he ever lived with Mali. Postley himself

admitted to officers that he did not live at Mali’s apartment, that they had broken up

approximately nine months before the assault, and that he had moved out of the

apartment. Mali confirmed these facts, telling the officers that Postley did not live

with her and that she refused to let him into her apartment the night of the assault. 

During recorded jail calls, Mali told Postley that “she” was being evicted, not that

“they” were being evicted. She told him that he should have gone home—that is, not

to her apartment. In sum, Postley may have once had a right, license, or privilege to

enter Mali’s apartment, but it had expired long before he kicked in her door and

assaulted her.

That the district court chose to credit this evidence over the testimony of

Postley’s mother and sister was not clearly erroneous. Postley’s statements to police

were corroborated time and time again. The district court noted, “If he really had

permission to be there and really had a key, it would not be necessary for him to kick

the door down.” These credibility determinations and factual findings are not clearly

erroneous, as they “are not internally inconsistent or based on testimony that is

incoherent, implausible, or contradicted by objective evidence in the case.” See

United States v. Jones, 254 F.3d 692, 695 (8th Cir. 2001). The district court correctly

-5-

Appellate Case: 16-1558 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/11/2016 Entry ID: 4457154 
found that Postley committed second-degree burglary by entering Mali’s apartment

without “right, license or privilege” and assaulting her.

Finally, Postley’s sole sentencing argument is that the district court abused its

discretion by considering the second-degree burglary finding. Because the district

court correctly found Postley committed second-degree burglary, and therefore a

Grade A violation, it did not abuse its discretion by sentencing him, within the

advisory guidelines range, to 30 months’ imprisonment. 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-6-

Appellate Case: 16-1558 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/11/2016 Entry ID: 4457154