IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 19-1417

Filed May 12, 2021

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

WILLIAM BURTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Randy V. Hefner, 

Judge.

William Burton appeals his conviction for second-degree robbery. 

AFFIRMED.

Erin M. Carr of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Tyler J. Buller, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.
2

BOWER, Chief Judge.

William Burton appeals his conviction for second-degree robbery, 

contending there is insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. Because 

substantial evidence supports a finding Burton purposely put his victim in fear of 

immediate serious injury, we affirm.

Dustin Hammond knew Mikayla Croy as Minnie Molly. Minnie Molly invited 

Hammond to an apartment complex on January 8, 2018. Hammond believed they 

were going to hang out at her friend’s borrowed apartment and smoke marijuana. 

However, Croy and Burton had previously discussed a plan for Croy to lure

Hammond to the area and Burton would rob Hammond at gunpoint.

When Hammond arrived at the south-side apartment to meet Croy, she took 

him into the apartment’s common area. She then told him it was the wrong building 

and led Hammond back down the hall to leave. On the way out, Burton passed 

them in the hallway. Hammond testified, “And as soon as I passed his shoulder, 

he turned around and put a gun to the back of the head, grabbed m[e] by the 

shoulder, pushed me out of the building.” Hammond acknowledged he was “pretty 

scared” and “shook up.” Burton demanded the keys to Hammond’s vehicle. Croy 

and Hammond took “everything” out of Hammond’s pockets, including his phone, 

keys, wallet, and cash. Croy took Hammond’s keys and ran to his vehicle, while 

Burton continued to hold something to Hammond’s head. On cross-examination 

Hammond testified: 

Q. So as Mikayla gets in the truck, who are you mostly paying 

attention to? A. The person that was holding the gun to my head.

Q. Well, are you facing him, or are you trying to get, watching 

Mikayla get into your truck? A. I mean the gun was held to the back 
3

of my head as I watched her run to my vehicle and get in it and start 

it, and then I was then released.

Q. And then you went rushing towards your truck, or towards 

your mother’s truck, right? A. Only once I saw the person with the

gun turn their back to get into their vehicle.

Burton described the male assailant: “I saw a heavy-set man. I guess I 

don’t, maybe a little bit shorter than me, pointing a gun at me. And I just, all I really 

remember like specifically was the tattoos on his knuckles that was holding the 

gun.” He also testified, “I thought that I had recognized him from somewhere I had 

been prior one other time, but I wasn’t positive if it was the same person or not.”

Once Burton turned his back and got into his own truck, Hammond ran after 

his vehicle1 yelling. Someone from the apartment complex told him to be quiet.

Hammond yelled his car was being stolen, and the person called the police. Croy 

and Burton both drove away. 

Hammond waited for the police and told them his vehicle, phone, and wallet 

had been stolen. He did not tell them he had brought a tin of marijuana with him, 

which had been stolen as well. Hammond was asked if he know who was involved,

and he told them Minnie Molly and “mentioned that [he] thought [he] recognized

the man holding the gun to [his] head, but [he] wasn’t positive if it was who [he] 

thought it was.” He gave the officers a description of the male. An officer drove 

Hammond to a residence where he thought he had seen the male. However, 

neither Hammond’s vehicle nor any other vehicle he recognized was there at the 

time.

 

1 The vehicle belonged to his mother.
4

Police eventually recovered the stolen vehicle, but Hammond’s wallet, 

identification, and phone were never found.

Hammond later called police to report he had seen the man with the gun on 

television and identified Burton. Hammond also picked Croy out of a photo lineup. 

Burton and Croy were charged with first-degree robbery. Croy entered into a plea 

agreement and testified at Burton’s trial. 

Croy testified she was homeless for a time and Burton allowed her to stay 

at his residence with him and his girlfriend for some weeks. Croy admitted she 

was using methamphetamine during this period and had used with Burton. Burton 

told Croy she needed to “come up with a way to gain money to get them for living 

at their house, and if I didn’t it was or else.” Croy admitted conspiring with Burton

to rob Hammond, to stealing items from Hammond while Burton kept him at bay, 

and to driving off with Hammond’s vehicle. She also testified she and Burton drove 

the respective vehicles to a preplanned meeting place. When they rendezvoused, 

Burton had a firearm in his truck, which discharged toward her but hit the truck’s 

passenger door.

Burton testified, denying any involvement with either Croy or Hammond.

The jury was instructed:

The State must prove all of the following elements of Robbery 

in the Second Degree:

(1) On or about the 8th day of January, 2018, [Burton] had the 

specific intent to commit a theft.

(2) To carry out that intention or to assist him in escaping from 

the scene, with or without the stolen property, [Burton]:

(a) Committed an assault on Dustin Hammond as defined in 

Instruction Number 22 and in committing the assault [Burton]

intended to inflict a serious injury upon Dustin Hammond, cause 

bodily injury or mental illness to Dustin Hammond, used or displayed 
5

a dangerous weapon in connection with the assault, or cause serious 

injury to Dustin Hammond; or

(b) Threatened Dustin Hammond with or purposely put Dustin 

Hammond in fear of immediate serious injury.

The jury found Burton guilty of second-degree robbery. Burton appeals.

Burton notes the jury necessarily rejected a finding Burton “used or 

displayed a dangerous weapon in connection with the assault” when it acquitted 

Burton of first-degree robbery. Burton argues there is insufficient evidence to 

support a finding he purposely put Hammond in fear of immediate serious injury.2 

“We review the sufficiency of the evidence for correction of

errors at law.” “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to 

the State, ‘including legitimate inferences and presumptions that may 

fairly and reasonably be deduced from the record evidence.’” We 

determine evidence is sufficient when the record contains substantial 

evidence to support conviction. “Substantial evidence exists when 

the evidence ‘would convince a rational fact finder the defendant is 

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’”

State v. Donahue, 957 N.W.2d 1, 7 (Iowa 2021) (citations omitted).

Even assuming the jury found Burton was not armed at the time of the 

robbery, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational 

jury could find Burton purposely put Hammond in fear of immediate serious injury. 

Hammond testified Burton placed a gun to the back of his head and shoved him 

out of a building at 3:00 a.m., demanding he empty his pockets and give up the 

keys to his vehicle. Hammond testified he did not run after his vehicle as Croy 

began to drive away because Burton had a gun to his head. Only when Burton left 

did Croy respond. A reasonable jury could have found Burton acted in a manner 

 

2 The State asserts Burton failed to preserve error. We choose to pass on the 

preservation issue and address the merits. 
6

indicating he was armed in order to put Burton in fear of immediate serious injury. 

See State v. Heard, 636 N.W.2d 227, 232 (Iowa 2001) (“From the totality of these 

facts, a fact finder could reasonably infer that by his actions—both verbal and 

nonverbal—Heard intended to place Hahn in fear of immediate physical contact 

that would be painful, injurious, or offensive if Hahn did not comply with his demand 

of money.”); see also State v. Tate, No. 15-1205, 2016 WL 3275447, at *2 (Iowa 

Ct. App. June 15, 2016) (citing cases).

Burton makes much of inconsistencies in Croy and Hammond’s testimony. 

But it is for the jury to determine credibility. See State v. Musser, 721 N.W.2d 758, 

761 (Iowa 2006) (“It is not the province of the court . . . to resolve conflicts in the 

evidence, to pass upon the credibility of witnesses, to determine the plausibility of 

explanations, or to weigh the evidence; such matters are for the jury.” (citation 

omitted)). Because substantial evidence supports a finding Burton purposely put 

Hammond in fear of immediate serious injury, there is sufficient evidence to 

support his second-degree-robbery conviction. We affirm.

AFFIRMED.