STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JESS WILLARD WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-318 / 08-0511
Filed May 29, 2009
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JESS WILLARD WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Lucy J.
Gamon, Judge.
Defendant appeals his conviction and sentencing for violation of the
pseudoephedrine purchase requirements. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Dennis D. Hendrickson,
Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney
General, and Barbara A. Edmondson, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Mansfield, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
Jess Williams appeals his conviction and sentencing for violating
pseudoephedrine purchase limitations. He argues the court erred in admitting
into evidence electronic pharmacy logs, in comparing handwriting samples itself
without expert testimony, and in failing to grant a deferred judgment. We review
for correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. Finding no error, we affirm.
I.
Electronic Pharmacy Logs.
Williams argues the court erred in admitting electronic logs from several
pharmacies. Pharmacies are required to keep a logbook in which purchasers of
pseudoephedrine sign for their purchase and also legibly print their name and
address. Iowa Code § 126.23A(1)(b)(3) (2007). Further, “[t]he logbook may be
kept in an electronic format upon approval by the department of public safety.”
Id. § 126.23A(5).
Williams claims the State did not present evidence the
electronic logs had been approved by the department of public safety. The State
argues the department of public safety gave blanket authorization for electronic
logbooks in the administrative code, which provides:
A logbook of retail sales of products containing
pseudoephedrine, as required in 2005 Iowa Acts, Senate File 169,
may be recorded in any electronic format, provided that the retailer
maintaining the logbook provides to any peace officer a printed
copy of the information required to be maintained in the same
manner as would be provided if the logbook were maintained on
paper.
Iowa Admin. Code r. 661-174.1 (emphasis added). We find no error and adopt
the following ruling of the district court:
“[T]his administrative code section
permits all pharmacies to use electronic logbooks in their discretion.”
3
II.
Handwriting Comparison.
The court compared the handwritten signatures on the records of
pseudoephedrine purchases with three authenticated signatures of Williams.
The court concluded all the signatures at issue were executed by Williams.
Williams argues the court erred “in allowing itself to compare handwriting
unguided by any expertise.”
The applicable legal standard for handwriting comparison provides:
“Evidence respecting handwriting may be given by experts, by comparison, or by
comparison by the jury, with writings of the same person which are proved to be
genuine.” Iowa Code § 622.25. Therefore, expert testimony is not required.
Because Williams requested a bench trial, the court acted as the fact finder
rather than a jury. As the fact finder, the court may compare signatures known to
be genuine with the signatures on the logbook purchase records. We find no
error.
III.
Sentencing.
Williams specifically requested a deferred judgment at sentencing and the
court denied his request.
Williams now seeks resentencing and deferred
judgment claiming the sentencing court misinterpreted the deferred judgment
statute. See Iowa Code § 907.3(1). We will not overturn a sentence absent an
abuse of discretion. State v. Liddell, 672 N.W.2d 805, 815 (Iowa 2003).
We need not remand for resentencing because Williams is ineligible for a
deferred judgment due to his previous felony conviction.
Williams’ 1983
conviction for second-degree burglary is a class “C” felony. See Iowa Code §
4
713.5 (1983).
Deferred judgment is not a sentencing option when “[t]he
defendant previously has been convicted of a felony.” Id. § 907.3(1)(b) (2007).
Accordingly, Williams’ sentence is affirmed.
We have considered all arguments raised and those not addressed are
without merit.
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.
