Court Opinion

ID: 9963161
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 17:05:40.865992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:41.512047
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                  No. 22-1666
                              Filed April 24, 2024

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

ALVONNI JANTE STONE,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

       Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Kellyann M.

Lekar, Judge.

       Alvonni Stone appeals his convictions for first-degree robbery and first-

degree burglary. AFFIRMED.

       Heidi Miller of Gribble, Boles, Stewart & Witosky Law, Des Moines, for

appellant.

       Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Katherine Wenman, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

       Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Badding, J., and Danilson, S.J.*

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

(2024).
                                        2

DANILSON, Senior Judge.

      A jury convicted Alvonni Stone of first-degree robbery and first-degree

burglary. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his

convictions. Following our review, we affirm.

I.    Background Facts

      Daijon Stokes loaned his cousin, Cederick Smith, $150. Smith couldn’t pay

Stokes back, and Stokes became angry over his failure to pay up. Four months

after Stokes loaned Smith the money, Smith planned to meet up with Dayton

Sanders at a local gas station to sell Sanders some K2, a type of synthetic

marijuana. Surveillance footage from around the same time shows Sanders with

Stokes and Stone. Stone flashed a gun to the others, appearing to role play

holding someone up. And then the three got into a vehicle together.

      Smith arrived at their meet-up spot first and waited for Sanders to arrive.

Sanders arrived a few minutes later along with Stone and Stokes.            Stone

approached the passenger-side door of Smith’s vehicle. Smith reached over to let

Stone in his car. Still, Stone hesitated to get into the car. That gave Stokes time

to run up to the driver-side of Smith’s car. Stokes reached into the car and began

to punch Smith as Stone stood in the doorway of the vehicle. Then Stone got into

the car and rummaged around, looking for things to take. He took cash and K2

from Smith’s vehicle. As Stone searched the car, Stokes continued to punch

Smith. Stone got out of the car and pulled out a handgun and pointed it at Smith.

As Smith drove away, Sanders approached the vehicle with a gun drawn. One of

the men fired at Smith and struck the hood of his car. Smith returned fire. Sanders

was struck by a bullet and died at the scene.
                                            3

       For his part, the State charged Stone with first-degree robbery, first-degree

burglary, intimidation with a dangerous weapon, going armed with intent, and use

of a dangerous weapon in committing a criminal offense. With respect to the first-

degree robbery and first-degree burglary charges, the State charged Stone as a

principal and, alternatively, as an aider and abettor. A jury returned general

verdicts finding Stone guilty of first-degree robbery and first-degree burglary and

acquitted him of the remaining charges.

       Stone appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his

convictions.

II.    Standard of Review

       We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for correction of

errors at law. See State v. Lacey, 968 N.W.2d 792, 800 (Iowa 2021). “Under this

standard, the court is highly deferential to the jury’s verdict. We will affirm the jury’s

verdict when the verdict is supported by substantial evidence.” Id. Evidence is

substantial if it is sufficient to convince a rational person of the defendant's guilt

beyond a reasonable doubt.         Id.   In making this determination, we view the

evidence and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from it in the light most

favorable to the State. Id. The question is whether the evidence supports the

finding the jury made, not whether it would support a different finding. Id.

III.   Discussion

       Stone contends that the State failed to establish sufficient evidence to

support his convictions for first-degree robbery and first-degree burglary. However,

Stone only contests whether the State established sufficient evidence that he

personally carried out the offenses; he does not challenge the sufficiency of the
                                          4

evidence supporting the aiding and abetting alternative theory presented to the

jury. Because the jury returned general verdicts as to both offenses, we may “not

set aside or reverse such a verdict on the basis of a . . . insufficient theory if one

or more of the theories presented and described in the . . . jury instruction is

sufficient to sustain the verdict.” Iowa Code § 814.28 (2021). And “[f]ailure to

challenge one of the alternatives is tantamount to conceding substantial evidence

supports that theory.” State v. Triplett, No. 19-1902, 2021 WL 3074475, at *1 (Iowa

Ct. App. July 21, 2021). Thus, we could simply affirm under the unchallenged

aiding-and-abetting alternative as to each offense without further analysis.

       Nevertheless, we elect to review whether Stone at least aided and abetted

others in the commission of each offense.         “[A]iding and abetting means to

‘knowingly approve and agree to the commission of a crime, either by active

participation in it or by knowingly advising or encouraging the act in some way

before or when it is committed.’” State v. Cook, 996 N.W.2d 703, 708 (Iowa 2023)

(citation omitted).

       As to the first-degree robbery conviction, the jury was instructed,

              The State must prove all of the following elements of Robbery
       in the First Degree:
              1. On or about August 24, 2021, Alvonni Stone or a person he
       aided and abetted had the specific intent to commit a theft.
              2. To carry out his intention or to assist him in escaping from
       the scene with or without the stolen property, Mr. Stone or a person
       he aided and abetted:
              (a) committed an assault, as defined in Instruction No. [37 1],
       on Cedrick Smith.

1
  The marshaling instruction misnumbered the definitional instruction for assault
as Instruction No. 18. However, Instruction No. 18 was the marshaling instruction
itself. The actual definitional instruction was Instruction 37. It stated:
              An Assault is committed when a person does an act which is
        meant to cause pain or injury, result in physical contact which will be
                                           5

              OR
              (b) threatened Cedrick Smith with or purposely put Cedrick
       Smith in fear of immediate serious injury.
              3. At that time, Alvonni Stone or a person he aided and
       abetted:
              (a) purposefully inflicted or attempted to inflict a serious injury
       on Cedrick Smith.
              OR
              (b) was armed with a dangerous weapon.

Stone only challenges the evidence supporting the second element.

       The evidence presented, including security-camera footage of the incident,

established that Stone, Stokes, and Sanders laid out a plan to rob Smith to get

back money Smith owed Stokes. At the parties’ meet-up, Stone approached

Smith’s car and delayed getting inside to distract Smith so that Stokes could

ambush him from the other side of the car. As Stokes punched Smith, Stone used

the distraction to rummage through the car to find items of value to take, including

cash and synthetic marijuana. This evidence establishes that Stone aided and

abetted Stokes’s assault of Smith, which was done to prevent Smith from stopping

Stone from taking his money and drugs. This conduct satisfied the second element

of the marshaling instruction.      Stone’s conviction for first-degree robbery is

supported by substantial evidence.

       insulting or offensive or place another person in fear of immediate
       physical contact which will be painful, injurious, insulting or offensive
       to another person, when coupled with apparent ability to do the act;
       or a person intentionally points a firearm toward another, or
       intentionally displays a dangerous weapon in a threatening manner
       toward another.
               “Apparent ability” means a reasonable person in Alvonni
       Stone’s position would expect the act to be completed under the
       existing facts and circumstances.
                                          6

      As to the first-degree burglary instruction, the jury was instructed:

              The State must prove all of the following elements of Burglary
      in the First Degree.
              1. On or about the 24th day of August, 2021, Alvonni Stone or
      a person he aided and abetted entered into the land vehicle of
      Cedrick Smith.
              2. The land vehicle of Cedrick Smith was an occupied
      structure as defined in Instruction No. 41.
              3. One or more persons were present in the occupied
      structure.
              4. Alvonni Stone or a person he aided and abetted did not
      have permission or authority to enter into the land vehicle of Cedrick
      Smith.
              5. The land vehicle of Cedrick Smith was not open to the
      public.
              6. Alvonni Stone or a person he aided and abetted aid did so
      with the specific intent to commit an assault as defined in Instruction
      No. 37 or a theft as defined in Instruction No. 40.
              7. During the incident, Alvonni Stone or a person he aided and
      abetted
              (a) possessed a dangerous weapon.
              OR
              (b) intentionally or recklessly inflicted bodily injury on Cedrick
      Smith.

      Stone limits his challenge for the burglary offense to the fourth element, that

he “or a person he aided and abetted did not have permission or authority to enter

into the land vehicle of Cedrick Smith.” While Smith did unlock his passenger door

to allow Stone to enter the vehicle, Stone’s conduct of distracting Smith allowed

Stokes to run up to the driver’s side of the vehicle and reach into the vehicle and

strike Smith. Even assuming Stone did have permission to enter the car, Stokes

did not. And Stone’s conduct aided and abetted Stokes’s reaching into the car and

striking Smith. As Stone does not challenge any other element supporting his

conviction, we need not review them. We conclude that Stone’s first-degree

burglary conviction is also supported by substantial evidence.

      AFFIRMED.