STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROBERT CECIL MAJORS, JR., Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-483 / 06-1365
Filed August 22, 2007
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ROBERT CECIL MAJORS, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert,
Judge.
Robert C. Majors appeals from the judgment and sentence entered after
his conviction for possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver,
failure to possess a tax stamp, and possession of a controlled substance.
AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Robert Ranschau, Assistant
State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Robert Ewald, Assistant Attorney
General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Stephanie Cox, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Baker, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
Robert C. Majors appeals from the judgment and sentence entered after
his conviction for possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver,
failure to possess a tax stamp, and possession of a controlled substance. We
affirm.
After receiving a report that two people were peeping into the windows of
a residence in Clive, police officers stopped a white van occupied by two men
matching the description of the suspects. Robert Majors was the driver and
registered owner of the van, and John Conrad was a passenger in the front seat.
Majors gave police officers consent to search the van where officers found
sixteen
baggies
containing
a
total
of
approximately
15.81
grams
of
methamphetamine. Most of the methamphetamine was in an organizer located
between the driver’s seat and the center console. Majors did not have drug tax
stamps for the methamphetamine. Officers also found $1700 in cash, pipes, a
spoon, map, note and a phone book in the van.
Conrad was searched and released at the scene. Majors was arrested
and taken to jail where he was searched.
Officers found 1.69 grams of
methamphetamine on him. Majors talked to a narcotics detective and admitted
the drugs, cash and the drug paraphernalia found in the van belonged to him.
Majors consented to a search of his home. Officers found approximately
one-half gram of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in Majors’s
bedroom. Majors was charged with possession of a controlled substance with
the intent to deliver (more than five grams of methamphetamine), failure to
possess a drug tax stamp and possession of a controlled substance.
3
Jury trial commenced on June 18, 2006. At trial, Majors testified that the
drug and drug paraphernalia found in the van belonged to John Conrad, and he
lied to the officers at the stop and arrest because he was afraid of Conrad. He
admitted the methamphetamine found in his bedroom was his and he bought it
from Conrad for personal use.
The jury found Majors guilty of all charges.
Majors appeals, contending the trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a
motion for a new trial challenging the weight of the evidence.
We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. State v.
McBride, 625 N.W.2d 372, 373 (Iowa Ct. App. 2001).
Generally, ineffective
claims are preserved for post-conviction relief. State v. Buck, 510N.W.2d 850,
853 (Iowa 1994). However, claims can be resolved on direct appeal when the
record adequately presents the issue. Id. The record in this case is adequate for
us to decide this issue on direct appeal.
To succeed with a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant
typically must prove the following two elements: (1) counsel failed to perform an
essential duty, and (2) defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s error. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 693
(1984). There is a strong presumption that counsel performed within the “wide
range of reasonable professional assistance.” Id. 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S. Ct. at
2065, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 694-95.
Majors argues that in a case such as this where the verdict rests on the
credibility of the witness, it is incumbent on the trial counsel to move for a new
trial asking the court to assess the weight of the evidence. This argument is
mistaken. Counsel has a duty to file the motion only if it has merit. See State v.
4
Hochmuth, 585 N.W.2d 234, 238 (Iowa 1998). In the present case, counsel
would not have an obligation to file a motion for new trial if the motion is not
warranted by the evidence.
A new trial should be granted only if, after considering both inculpatory
and exculpatory evidence, the jury’s verdict was contrary to the weight of the
evidence. State v. Ellis, 578 N.W.2d 655, 659 (Iowa 1998). The district court
should exercise its discretion in ruling on motions for new trial “carefully and
sparingly.” Id. A new trial should be granted only in exceptional cases where the
evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict. Id. When the evidence is
nearly balanced or is such that different minds could fairly arrive at different
conclusions, the district court should not disturb the jury’s findings.
State v.
Reeves, 670 N.W.2d 199, 203 (Iowa 2003) (quoting State v. Oasheim, 353
N.W.2d 291, 294 (N.D. 1984)).
We do not find evidence in the present case preponderates heavily
against the verdict. The amount of drugs and cash found in the van is consistent
with drug dealing. After arrest, Majors admitted he had been dealing drugs as a
middleman for the past six months and substantiated this admission with details.
He told the narcotics detective that he would usually buy approximately three and
a half grams to seven grams of methamphetamine at one time. He stated that he
had a supplier named D.C. in Omaha to whom he owed $600 purchase money.
Majors claimed at trial that these pretrial statements were false and he lied
because he was afraid of Conrad. However, there is no corroborating evidence
making this fear credible. Majors also denied the $1700 were proceeds from
drug dealings. He claimed he withdrew the money from his bank account to buy
5
Valentine’s Day gifts for his family.
However, he did not provide a bank
statement to support his testimony. The evidence supporting Majors’s conviction
is strong. The trial court would not have abused its broad discretion by denying a
motion for new trial. Consequently, Majors has not established that his counsel
was ineffective in failing to file a motion for new trial.
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.
