IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-0426

Filed September 27, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

ALEJANDRO ANTONIO FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Tom Reidel, 

Judge.

Defendant appeals his conviction of one crime and the imposition of 

consecutive sentences on two counts of going armed with intent and two counts 

of willful injury causing serious injury. AFFIRMED.

Elizabeth Araguas of Nidey, Erdahl, Meier & Araguas, PLC, Cedar Rapids, 

for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Israel Kodiaga, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Badding, J., and Gamble, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 

(2023).
2

BADDING, Judge.

A night out at a new bar almost ended with the deaths of two of its patrons

after they were stabbed in the parking lot. Alejandro Flores was caught by police 

running from the bar with a bloody knife in his pocket. He was charged with 

multiple crimes for the stabbings, including two counts of attempt to commit 

murder. 

After hearing from more than twenty witnesses and watching videos from 

cameras inside and outside the bar, a jury found Flores guilty of two counts of 

assault with intent to inflict serious injury (as lesser included offenses of the 

attempted-murder charges), two counts of going armed with intent, and two counts 

of willful injury causing serious injury. Flores appeals, raising a sufficiency-of-theevidence challenge and a complaint about his sentences. We affirm. 

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

On January 23, 2021, Samantha Frye and her boyfriend decided to 

celebrate their birthdays together with a dinner at a local restaurant. When they 

were done eating, they called Samantha’s niece, Faith, who was out on a date 

herself. The couples met up at a nearby martini bar, before deciding to head to a 

new bar in town.

Soon after they arrived, Faith’s ex-boyfriend, Dayton Elliott, walked into the 

bar with a group of people that included Flores. No one in Samantha’s group knew 

Flores. But they did know Elliott because his relationship with Faith had ended 

badly. Faith felt threatened when Elliott walked in, as did Samantha. So they 

made plans to leave while trying to avoid Elliott—who was staring at them from 

across the bar and making hand gestures toward them.
3

As Samantha, Faith, and their dates tried to walk out of the bar, Elliott and 

Flores approached them. The video from cameras inside the bar, which does not 

have audio, seems to show the two groups exchanging words. An owner of the 

bar moved Elliott away from Samantha’s group as they left the bar. Flores tried to 

go after them, but Ashley, one of Samantha’s friends, held him back for a few 

seconds, ripping his sweatshirt in the process. Flores pushed her aside and 

quickly followed Samantha’s group outside. Elliott left the bar from a different exit 

and went around to the parking lot.

Video from cameras outside the bar shows Samantha’s group walking to 

her vehicle. Flores can be seen rushing out after them. Ashley was close behind, 

trying to separate him from the group. While she was next to Flores, Ashley 

testified that she heard a switchblade click open and saw the blade in his hand. 

She yelled out, “Knife,” but no one heard her. Faith’s date, however, saw the knife

when he turned to look back at Flores. Ashley ran into the bar to get help, while 

another bystander tried to keep Flores away from Samantha’s group.

Meanwhile, Samantha’s group made it to her car. They all got in except for 

Samantha, who was standing outside the driver’s side door yelling for Ashley to 

come with them. As she was doing so, Flores and Elliott advanced toward her 

vehicle. Elliott split off from Flores and went around to the front of the car while 

Flores approached the passenger side. The video of what happened next is dark 

and difficult to see. One of the bar owners, who was standing outside, testified 

that it looked like Flores “put his upper body into the vehicle.” But Samantha’s 

boyfriend, who was in the front passenger seat, said that Flores never came into 
4

the vehicle. He was sure that all the windows and doors, except for Samantha’s, 

were closed. 

According to Samantha, who was still outside the vehicle, Elliott was 

“banging on the vehicle and shouting profanities . . . demanding that Faith talk to 

him.” Samantha testified that she looked across the car at Elliott and heard him 

say, “Fucking stab her already.” Samantha got into the car and told her boyfriend 

what Elliott had said. Once she was inside, Samantha’s boyfriend saw Flores “on 

the front passenger side of the car in the front.” Samantha then tried to back out 

of the parking spot. She thought that her window was down while she was doing 

so. As the car was backing up, some bystanders outside the bar thought it ran 

over Flores’s leg. From her spot in the back, Faith remembers seeing Flores 

“getting up off the ground, propping himself up on the car.”

Another camera angle outside the bar shows that as the car pulled out of

the parking spot, Flores ran toward the driver’s side in a crouched position. The 

car then speeds away. Inside the car, Samantha “felt a gush” of what she thought 

was warm water pouring down her back. She put her hand behind her left shoulder 

blade and saw it was blood. Samantha told her boyfriend that she’d been stabbed. 

While he put pressure on the wound, Samantha drove them straight to the hospital. 

Back at the bar, Elliott and Flores walked up to a car parked near the front 

that belonged to Dalton Manley’s fiancée. Dalton, who didn’t know either Elliott or 

Flores, went outside to tell them that “it was not their vehicle and they should 

probably leave” because the police had been called. Surveillance video from the 

bar shows that Flores had a knife in his hand as he approached Dalton. One of 

the women who was with Elliott’s group stepped in between them and then 
5

punched Dalton in the face. After Dalton pushed her away, a fight broke out 

between him, Flores, and Elliott. Bystanders jumped in, and one pulled Dalton out 

of the melee. Dalton staggered toward the front door of the bar, soon realizing that 

he had been stabbed in the abdomen. As police cars pulled into the bar’s parking 

lot, Flores and Elliott took off in different directions.

One of the police officers who responded to the disturbance chased after 

Flores, yelling at him to stop. Flores kept running into a rail yard behind the bar. 

The officer saw Flores try to jump over a rail car but, as he was coming down, 

Flores got his foot stuck in the coupling of the car. With Flores trapped, more 

officers caught up to him. Knowing there had been a stabbing, an officer asked 

Flores if he had any knives on him. Flores admitted that he had one in his front 

pocket. The officer removed the knife before freeing Flores’s foot and placing him 

in handcuffs. The knife had blood on it, which subsequent testing determined was 

from Dalton. Elliott was later found hiding in a dumpster by the bar. Both victims 

survived their life-threatening injuries.

Flores and Elliott were charged in a joint trial information with the two 

stabbings.

1

 They were tried together, and a jury found Flores guilty of two counts 

of assault with intent to inflict serious injury, as lesser included offenses of 

attempted murder; two counts of willful injury causing serious injury; and two 

counts of going armed with intent. At Flores’s sentencing, the district court merged 

the two assault counts with the two willful-injury counts and imposed consecutive 

1 They were both charged with two counts of attempt to commit murder and two 

counts of willful injury causing serious injury. Flores was also charged with two 

counts of going armed with intent. 
6

sentences on the remaining counts, for a total term of imprisonment not to exceed 

thirty years. 

Flores appeals, claiming (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove that he 

stabbed Samantha; and (2) the district court abused its discretion by imposing 

consecutive sentences. 

II. Sufficiency of the Evidence

We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a 

conviction for correction of errors at law. State v. Crawford, 974 N.W.2d 510, 516 

(Iowa 2022). As our supreme court stated in Crawford,

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider 

whether, taken in the light most favorable to the State, a finding of 

guilt is supported by substantial evidence in the record. There is 

substantial evidence if the evidence would convince a rational fact 

finder the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We draw 

all legitimate inferences in support of the verdict. However, evidence 

which merely raises suspicion, speculation, or conjecture is 

insufficient. The evidence must at least raise a fair inference of guilt 

as to each essential element of the crime.

Id. at 516–17 (cleaned up).

Flores does not identify which elements of which counts he is challenging. 

Instead, he asserts: “Even viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the 

evidence was insufficient to prove Flores stabbed [Samantha] beyond a 

reasonable doubt.”2 In support of this claim, Flores contends (1) there was no 

video evidence showing that he stabbed Samantha; (2) Samantha “was very 

2 The State argues that Flores waived this claim because he did not “cit[e] to the 

record or develop[e] his arguments.” While Flores’s claim is lacking in specificity, 

we find there is enough there to allow us to address the claim without becoming 

advocates ourselves. Cf. Inghram v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co., 215 N.W.2d 239, 240 

(Iowa 1974).
7

intoxicated on the evening in question” and neither she nor anyone else saw the

stabbing take place; and (3) Samantha’s blood was not found on Flores’s knife.3

True, the video does not show Samantha’s stabbing, and no one saw it 

happen. But direct evidence of guilt is not required. That’s because “circumstantial 

evidence is as probative as direct evidence.” State v. Brimmer, 983 

N.W.2d 247, 256 (Iowa 2022). And here, there was plenty of circumstantial 

evidence that could convince a rational jury that Flores stabbed Samantha. See 

Crawford, 974 N.W.2d at 516. 

Flores was armed with a knife as he pursued Samantha and her group 

outside the bar. Just before Samantha was stabbed in her back left side, she 

heard Elliott tell Flores, “Fucking stab her already.” See, e.g., State v. Burton, 

No. 19-1754, 2021 WL 2453365, at *15 (Iowa Ct. App. June 16, 2021) (concluding 

the statement “bitch I’ll shoot you” was substantial evidence in support of murder 

conviction). Flores can be seen on the videos near Samantha’s car and running 

up to the driver’s side as the car paused to shift into drive, supporting the State’s 

theory that Flores stabbed Samantha through the open window as she drove away. 

After the stabbings, Flores was caught running from the police with a bloody knife 

in his pocket. See State v. Marsh, 392 N.W.2d 132, 134 (Iowa 1986) (stating 

evidence of flight may be introduced at trial and used by counsel in argument as 

evidence of consciousness of guilt). Although Samantha’s blood was not found on 

the knife, the other victim’s was. In an interview with the police after the stabbings, 

3 Flores also challenges law enforcement’s failure to “conduct any forensic 

investigation on [Samantha’s] vehicle, although it had blood on the interior and 

exterior.” But he does not explain what that would have proven, since Samantha 

was the only one in the vehicle who was stabbed.
8

Flores admitted that “[h]e had possession of his knife the entire” night. He also 

told the officer “that he was already fucked and he’d stabbed two white bitches that 

he didn’t even know.” 

There is conflicting evidence in the record, with each witness remembering 

the chaotic events a bit differently. But it’s the jury’s job, not ours, to sort out those 

conflicts. See State v. Thornton, 498 N.W.2d 670, 673 (Iowa 1993) (“The jury is 

free to believe or disbelieve any testimony as it chooses and to give weight to the 

evidence as in its judgment such evidence should receive. In fact, the very function 

of the jury is to sort out the evidence and place credibility where it belongs.” 

(cleaned up)). Upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s 

verdict, including reasonable inferences to be drawn from it, we conclude there 

was sufficient evidence that Flores stabbed Samantha. See State v. Ernst, 954 

N.W.2d 50, 60 (Iowa 2021).

III. Consecutive Sentences

Flores next challenges the reasons the court provided for its decision to 

impose consecutive sentences. We review this claim for an abuse of discretion. 

See State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269, 272 (Iowa 2016).

Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.23(3)(d) requires the court to “state on 

the record its reason for selecting the particular sentence.” This rule “applies to 

the district court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences.” Hill, 878 N.W.2d 

at 273. “Although the reasons need not be detailed, at least a cursory explanation 

must be provided to allow appellate review of the trial court’s discretionary action.” 

State v. Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d 679, 690 (Iowa 2000). 

Here, the court provided more than a cursory explanation:
9

Well, Mr. Flores, my duty in every case is to determine what 

the appropriate rehabilitative plan for you would be, and to always, 

first and foremost, consider that the public must be protected. In 

doing so, I look at the seriousness of the crime, the effect that this 

crime has upon members of the community, whether you have any 

willingness to accept change and treatment, and what’s available to 

assist [] you [in] that process. In the entire thought process, I do start 

with the least restrictive alternatives before I move on to the more

restrictive.

. . . .

I’ve been a judge for 11 years—actually 11 years today—and 

I have handled murder cases. I’ve handled many violent crimes. I 

don’t think I’ve seen anybody act as callously as you did and have 

as little remorse for aggressive, unprovoked violence against two

individuals as you have.

I think you’re a danger to the community. I don’t think you 

have any interest in changing. I think you think it’s cool to be a 

danger to the community and that scares me.

So in order to protect the community, to maximize your 

chance for rehabilitation, and to deter this type of conduct in others, 

the Court does believe that all four charges should run consecutive 

to each other.

The Court also notes that despite the fact that these crimes 

happened at the same place and literally minutes apart, there was 

absolutely no connection between the [separate] crimes. They were 

just two separate crimes that were heinous in nature, and they were 

committed by a person, apparently, who is prone to violence.

There was nothing in the evidence I heard in almost three 

weeks of trial that indicated there was anything that Samantha [] did 

to provoke this. While there was a little evidence that [Dalton] did 

something to provoke a response, he did nothing to provoke a

response that would be this disproportionate to have another human 

being thrust a knife into his flesh. That is just a heinous and violent 

act.

While Flores complains the court did not adequately consider his ability to 

be rehabilitated, that was one of the court’s first stated considerations—whether 

Flores had “any willingness to accept change and treatment” and what was

“available to assist [him in] that process.” And although the court did not mention 

the mitigating circumstances that Flores highlights on appeal—like Flores’s

absentee father, the death of his mother a few months before the stabbings, and 
10

his substance-abuse history—the court is not “required to specifically acknowledge 

each claim of mitigation urged by a defendant.” State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11 

(Iowa Ct. App. 1995). Further, the “failure to acknowledge a particular sentencing 

circumstance does not necessarily mean it was not considered.” Id. We find no 

abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences.

IV. Conclusion

We find sufficient evidence supports Flores’s convictions for stabbing 

Samantha and detect no abuse of discretion in the court’s imposition of 

consecutive sentences.

AFFIRMED.