STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ALVIN LEE COOPER, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-732 / 05-0934
Filed November 30, 2006
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ALVIN LEE COOPER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, David E.
Schoenthaler, Judge.
Alvin Lee Cooper appeals his conviction of two counts of possession with
intent to deliver, harassment, and interference with official acts. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Robert Ranschau,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Linda Hines, Assistant Attorney
General, William E. Davis, County Attorney, and Kelly G. Cunningham, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Mahan and Zimmer, JJ.
2
MAHAN, J.
Alvin Lee Cooper appeals his conviction of two counts of possession with
intent to deliver, harassment, and interference with official acts. He argues there
was insufficient evidence to show his identity or his intent to deliver. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
On November 6, 2004, police investigating a “shots fired” call encountered
Cooper sitting in a car behind an apartment building. Cooper got out of the
vehicle as the officers approached. They told him to place his hands on his head
so they could perform a pat down. Cooper appeared to comply at first, then ran
away. The officers chased him. While they were chasing him, they saw him
reach into his pockets and throw away small plastic bags. A crowd had gathered
and cheered Cooper on. Police were unable to catch Cooper at that time. They
were, however, able to locate three of the plastic bags Cooper had thrown. 1 Two
bags contained approximately one-half ounce of marijuana each, while the third
contained eight tablets of ecstasy.
Cooper was charged with four crimes: possession with intent to deliver a
schedule I controlled substance (ecstasy), in violation of Iowa Code sections
124.401(1)(c)(8), 124.204(4)(z), and 703.1 (2005); possession with intent to
deliver a schedule I controlled substance (marijuana), in violation of sections
124.401(1)(d), 124.204(4)(m), and 703.1; harassment, in violation of section
718.4; and interference with official acts, in violation of section 709.1(1). After a
bench trial on April 18 and 19, 2005, the district court convicted him on all four
counts. Cooper appeals.
1
Police suspect the crowd that had cheered Cooper took some of the bags.
3
II. Standard of Review
We review the sufficiency of the evidence to convict for errors at law.
State v. Nitcher, 720 N.W.2d 547, 556 (Iowa 2006).
III. Merits
A. Identity
Cooper argues there is insufficient evidence identifying him as the
individual police chased on November 6, 2004. At trial, two of his witnesses
provided him with an alibi. He also claims he and his brother look very much
alike.
We find there is sufficient evidence to identify Cooper. One of the officers
who chased Cooper that night recognized him from a club where the officer
worked.
Both officers were able to identify him immediately upon seeing a
picture of him at the police station shortly after the chase. At trial, both officers
also testified to their certainty that Cooper was the person they chased:
Q. How close were you to this individual that got out of the
car? OFFICER ONE: Again I was within—once he turned to me,
within a foot of his face.
Q. Did you know this individual? OFFICER ONE. I know
him to have a nickname of Blue, King Blue.
....
Q. So did you immediately recognize him when he got out of
the car? OFFICER ONE. Yes.
Q. No problems with that at all? OFFICER ONE: No.
....
Q. How certain are you that the subject that you were
dealing with was Alvin Cooper? OFFICER TWO: I’m absolutely
certain.
Q. Any doubt in your mind? OFFICER TWO: No, ma’am.
Additionally, Cooper is five feet eight inches tall. His brother, on the other hand,
is five feet four inches tall. One of the officers, who is five feet eight inches tall,
4
testified that he was eye-to-eye with the individual he encountered on
November 6. Further, officers found a cap in the car in which Cooper was sitting
embroidered with the name of Cooper’s company on the front and “King Blue” on
the back. Finally, the district court determined that both witnesses who provided
Cooper’s alibi were not credible.
For these reasons, we conclude there is
sufficient evidence to identify Cooper as the person the officers chased.
B. Intent to Deliver
Cooper argues the evidence was insufficient to show he possessed
marijuana and ecstasy with the intent to deliver.
We disagree for several
reasons. First, Cooper ran away when officers told him to place his hands on his
head so they could pat him down. Second, as he ran, Cooper was observed
discarding several small plastic bags. Third, though police were only able to find
three of the bags Cooper discarded as he ran, all three contained drugs. Fourth,
no paraphernalia indicating personal use of the drugs was found in the car. Fifth,
a narcotics expert testified the manner in which the marijuana was packaged was
consistent with the intent to deliver. Sixth, the expert also testified the amount of
ecstasy Cooper discarded was inconsistent with personal use. A personal user
would typically only posses a half or quarter tablet and no more than one or two
tablets. Cooper discarded at least eight tablets. Finally, Cooper was in a high
drug crime area at the time he was chased. We therefore conclude there is
sufficient evidence to show Cooper possessed both ecstasy and marijuana with
the intent to deliver. See State v. Grant, 722 N.W.2d 645, 647-48 (Iowa 2006).
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.