Court Opinion

ID: 9383040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-29 15:15:30.091341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:43.244018
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                   No. 21-1886
                              Filed March 29, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

AARON DAVID SECOR,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Casey D. Jones, District

Associate Judge.

      A defendant appeals his convictions. AFFIRMED.

      Allan M. Richards, Tama, for appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee.

      Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.
                                          2

SCHUMACHER, Judge.

       Aaron Secor appeals his convictions for assault with intent to inflict serious

injury, in violation of Iowa Code section 708.1(1) and (2) (2021), and assault while

displaying a dangerous weapon, in violation of Iowa Code section 708.1(2)(c) and

(3). As recited in his appellate brief,

       Secor seeks to overturn the jury verdict because he did not fully
       understand the law and issues for a conviction. That the applicant
       seeks ‘due process’ in this matter for an opportunity to argue that this
       matter was outside his control and understanding, as to the nature
       of the offense. Failure to allow a hearing on the issues would
       constitute unusual punishment for Secor.

       Secor did not make these claims at the district court level; therefore, he did

not preserve error for our review.1 See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537

(Iowa 2002).

       And even if we were to consider error preserved on this issue, Secor’s

appellate brief lacks citations to relevant law and the record, instead leaving it to

this court to divine his claims and the factual basis that may support them. As a

result, even if error were preserved, we consider the claims waived. See Iowa R.

App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3); State v. Stoen, 596 N.W.2d 504, 507 (Iowa 1999). Without

citations to relevant law in the argument section of the appellate brief to clearly

identify and develop Secor’s claims on appeal, we cannot reach the merits. To do

1 Contrary to Secor’s assertions, his notice of appeal was insufficient to preserve
error. See Thomas A. Mayes & Anuradha Vaitheswaran, Error Preservation in
Civil Appeals in Iowa: Perspectives on Present Practice, 55 Drake L. Rev. 39, 48
(2006). And we recognize that where an appellant claims his sentence is cruel
and unusual punishment, our supreme court has held that such need not be raised
in the district court. See State v. Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d 862, 872 (Iowa 2009). But
Secor is asking the court to set aside the verdicts, rather than the sentence, falling
outside the narrow exception to error preservation carved by Bruegger.
                                       3

so would require us to “speculate on the arguments [Secor] might have made and

then search for legal authority and comb the record for facts to support such

arguments,” which we cannot do. Hyler v. Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864, 876 (Iowa

1996); see also Inghram v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co., 215 N.W.2d 239, 240 (Iowa

1974) (refusing to reach the merits of an appeal when doing so “would require us

to assume a partisan role and undertake the appellant’s research and advocacy”).

We affirm.

      AFFIRMED.