STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JERMAINE DAVONN HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-321 / 06-0844
Filed May 23, 2007
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JERMAINE DAVONN HOWARD,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Duane E.
Hoffmeyer, Judge.
Jermaine Howard appeals from the judgment entered on his convictions
for three drug charges. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Dennis D. Hendrickson and
Robert Ranschau, Assistant Appellate Defenders, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sharon Hall, Assistant Attorney
General, Patrick Jennings, County Attorney, and Brigit M. Barnes and Mark C
Campbell, Assistant County Attorneys, for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Baker, JJ.
2
BAKER, J.
Following a jury trial, Jermaine Howard was found guilty of conspiracy to
possess with intent to deliver cocaine base (more than ten grams), possession of
marijuana, and a drug tax stamp violation. See Iowa Code §§ 124.401(1)(b)(3),
124.411, 124.401(5), 453B.12 (2005).
On appeal, he only asserts the
insufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions. We review this claim for
correction of errors at law. State v. Rohm, 609 N.W.2d 504, 509 (Iowa 2000).
Howard maintains the facts of this case are similar to those in State v.
Nickens,, 644 N.W.2d 38, 40 (Iowa Ct. App. 2002), in which we reversed the
defendant’s convictions for conspiracy, possession with intent to deliver crack
cocaine, and a tax stamp violation. There, upon executing a search warrant at a
residence, Nickens was discovered sleeping in a bedroom; however,
significantly, none of the relevant incriminating evidence was located in that room
and some of it was hidden within and under furniture. Id. We held this evidence
insufficient to establish his possession of those items or that he had entered into
a conspiracy to possess and deliver the drugs. Id. at 42.
This case is distinguishable from Nickens.
Here, when police officers
entered a residence from which a smell of marijuana was emanating, Howard
was observed exiting a bathroom. Incriminating evidence was discovered both in
plain sight and secreted throughout the residence, including in the bathroom. In
addition, Howard’s fingerprints were found to be on two baggies that, according
to officers, were being used in the packaging of drugs. We find the evidence
sufficient to support each of the convictions and therefore affirm.
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.
