Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 8-930 / 08-0541 Filed February 4, 2009

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LEO JOHN SULLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Francis J. Lange, Judicial Magistrate, and Randal J. Nigg, Judge.

On discretionary review, defendant appeals from his simple misdemeanor conviction, following bench trial before a judicial magistrate, for interference with official acts. AFFIRMED.

Jeffrey L. Walters of Clemens, Walters, Conlon & Meyer, L.L.P., Dubuque, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Karen Doland, Assistant Attorney General, Ralph Potter, County Attorney, and Alisha A. Stach-Lorang, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Heard by Mahan, P.J., and Miller and Doyle, JJ.

2 MAHAN, P.J. Following a bench trial before a judicial magistrate, Leo J. Sullivan was convicted of interference with official acts, a simple misdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code section 719.1(1) (2007). The conviction was affirmed on appeal to the district court. He sought discretionary review, contending the court

misinterpreted the statute and that the evidence against him was insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he interfered with official acts. We affirm. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. The Dubuque County Sheriffs Department attempted to serve Sullivan with original notice of a civil lawsuit twenty-nine times between July 18, 2007, and August 14, 2007. After several such attempts to serve Sullivan, on July 22, 2007, Sergeant Tom Rettinger called Sullivan to notify him of the lawsuit. Sullivan agreed to "stop down" to pick up the papers after an appointment with his attorney, at which time the Department set aside the task of attempting to serve him. However, Sullivan failed to follow through and did not pick up the papers. The sheriffs office thus made several more attempts to serve him at his home. When officers knocked on the door, no one answered. Several "door tags" (notices asking a person to contact the sheriffs department) were left at Sullivans residence, and he did not respond to the tags. On August 14, 2007, Deputy Harly Pothoff attempted to serve Sullivan, but no one came to the door. When Deputy Pothoff returned later that day, he noticed Sullivans vehicle, which had been parked at the residence before, was gone. He put out an "attempt to locate" notice for Sullivan over the police radio.

3 An Asbury police officer stopped Sullivans vehicle in a supermarket parking lot. Deputy Pothoff arrived on the scene. Sullivan admitted he had been attempting to avoid the service of process. Deputy Pothoff charged Sullivan with interfering with official acts. On August 14, 2007, the State filed a criminal complaint charging Sullivan with interference with official acts, a simple misdemeanor. The complaint alleged Sullivan "[d]id knowingly interfere with the Official Acts of a uniformed officer acting under the color of law by knowingly and intentionally avoiding the service of civil papers." Trial was held, and the presiding magistrate found Sullivan guilty. Sullivan appealed to the district court. The proceedings before the magistrate were not recorded or transcribed. After reviewing the magistrates written notes regarding the testimony of the witnesses, the district court affirmed the defendant s conviction. The district court wrote: The crux of this appeal is whether the Defendants failure to respond to the sheriffs request to contact the sheriff about the service (including not answering his residence door) falls within the definition of obstructing or hindering the sheriff deputies in the performance of their lawful duty. This Court agrees with the Magistrates conclusion that the Defendants failure to answer his door and/or voluntarily cooperate to allow the service of process amounts to knowing resistance or obstruction of ,,the service or execution by an authorized person of any civil or criminal process . . ." [1] Obstruction has been held to be "hindering," with hindering being defined as "retarding" or "delaying." The Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure envision that particular defendants may attempt to avoid process and specifically provide alternatives to personal service when a party can demonstrate that the defendant or respondent is avoiding service or "keeps concealed with like intent." See for
1

Quoting, in part, Iowa Code

Download STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff - Appellee, vs. LEO JOHN SULLIVAN , Defendant - App

Iowa Law