Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03161/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03161-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ken Burger
Appellee
Steven M. Cooley
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3161

___________

Steven M. Cooley, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Ken Burger, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 15, 2006

Filed: March 20, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

An Iowa state jury convicted Steven M. Cooley of forgery in violation of Iowa

Code § 715A.2. The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed Cooley’s conviction, stating:

A jury reasonably could have found that Kristin Heutmaker made out

check number 1111 to her mortgage company for $19. She mailed the

check, but the mortgage company did not receive it. An investigation

revealed that Cooley, a man unknown to the Heutmakers, presented

check number 1111 to Horizon Bank. The check was made out to

himself in the amount of $419. Before cashing the check, the bank

confirmed Cooley’s identity by copying his driver’s license. The bank

retained the copy with its check-cashing ticket. These facts constitute

substantial evidentiary support for the jury’s verdict. 

Appellate Case: 05-3161 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2006 Entry ID: 2022629
*

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Court for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

-2-

State v. Cooley, 2003 WL 22187576, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 24, 2003)

(unpublished). The court also held an earlier conviction could not be used to enhance

Cooley’s sentence. Id. Cooley was resentenced to imprisonment for five years. 

Cooley then brought this federal habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asserting

there was insufficient evidence to convict him because there was no evidence he knew

the check he cashed was forged. The district court* denied habeas relief, holding the

state court reasonably decided the evidence was sufficient to convict Cooley because

the jury could infer intent from the surrounding circumstances. 

Cooley now appeals the denial of his habeas petition, challenging the

sufficiency of the evidence. We may grant relief on Cooley’s habeas claim if the state

court’s decision “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of

the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). To

prevail, Cooley must show by clear and convincing evidence that the state court’s

presumptively correct factual findings do not enjoy support in the record. Id. §

2254(e)(1); Whitehead v. Dormire, 340 F.3d 532, 536 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Jackson

v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319-21 (1979)). 

Relying on Stallings v. Tansy, 28 F.3d 1018 (10th Cir. 1994), Cooley contends

the state court’s decision is unreasonable because the state presented no evidence of

his intent to defraud the Heutmakers or Horizon Bank, and did not explain how he

came into possession of the check. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable

to the verdict and resolving all conflicting inferences in the state’s favor, we conclude

a rational factfinder could have inferred Cooley acted with intent to defraud, as

required for forgery under Iowa law. See Whitehead, 340 F.3d at 537; State v.

Appellate Case: 05-3161 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2006 Entry ID: 2022629
-3-

Acevedo, 705 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Iowa 2005). The evidence at trial showed Cooley

presented the altered check to the bank the day after Kristin Heutmaker had placed it

in her mailbox, and examination of the check indicated it had been distressed and

washed to remove as much of the original pen ink as possible. The amount had been

increased by four hundred dollars, and the signature appears as Kathy rather than

Kristin. Unlike the situation in Stallings, Cooley presented no evidence of innocent

possession. Indeed, Cooley did not rebut any of the unchallenged testimony against

him. Thus, the district court properly denied Cooley’s petition for habeas relief. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3161 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/20/2006 Entry ID: 2022629