Court Opinion

ID: 9911655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 17:04:19.027799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:51.752243
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                  No. 22-1641
                           Filed December 20, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

CALVONTA IBRION STALLINGS,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Henry W. Latham II,

Judge.

      Calvonta Stallings appeals his convictions for first-degree robbery.

AFFIRMED.

      Raya Dimitrova of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Joshua A. Duden, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

      Considered by Bower, C.J., Ahlers, J., and Danilson, S.J.*

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

(2023).
                                           2

DANILSON, Senior Judge.

       A jury convicted Calvonta Stallings of two counts of first-degree robbery for

stealing women’s handbags at gunpoint on two separate occasions. Stallings

appeals, stating that his convictions are not supported by sufficient evidence. But

he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in name only. In substance, Stallings

brings evidentiary challenges. Specifically, he challenges the admissibility of photo

lineups, a witness’s out-of-court identification of him using the lineup photos, and

another witness’s in-court identification of him as her assailant.

       However, we cannot consider the merits of any of Stallings’s appellate

claims because he failed to preserve error on any claim. Stallings never filed a

motion to suppress the photo lineups; nor did he object to the admission of the

photo lineup at trial or the out-of-court and in-court identifications of him. Because

Stallings failed to raise his claims in the district court, the district court never had

the opportunity to rule on his claims and we have nothing to review. See State v.

Bynum, 937 N.W.2d 319, 324 (Iowa 2020). With nothing to review, we cannot

reach the merits of Stallings claims, constitutional or otherwise. See id. And to the

extent that Stallings does challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, he has waived

that claim by failing to provide any supporting appellate argument or authority. See

Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3); State v. Vaugh, 859 N.W.2d 492, 503 (Iowa 2015).

       Because none of Stallings’s claims are properly before us, we affirm without

further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(e).

       AFFIRMED.