Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 01 / 05-1798 Filed September 7, 2007 STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, vs. LORANT A. WELLS, Appellant.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, L. Vern Robinson, Judge.

Defendant appeals from his conviction of sexual abuse in the third degree. AFFIRMED.

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa R. Wilson, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Jean C. Pettinger, Assistant Attorney General, J. Patrick White, County Attorney, and Anne Lahey, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

2 HECHT, Justice. Lorant Wells appeals from his conviction of sexual abuse in the third degree, contending the district court erred in: (1) admitting, over Wells's hearsay and confrontation clause objections, evidence of statements made by a patient to a sexual assault nurse examiner, (2) failing to inquire into the alleged breakdown of Wells's relationship with his attorney, and (3) applying an incorrect legal standard when ruling on a motion for new trial. We conclude the error, if any, arising from the admission of the challenged evidence was harmless. We also conclude the district court applied the correct standard when ruling on the motion for new trial, and we preserve for a possible postconviction proceeding Wells's claim that the district court failed to adequately inquire into the claimed breakdown of the relationship between Wells and his lawyer. I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

On December 4, 2001, Iowa City police officers were dispatched to a residence to investigate a claim that L.M. had been sexually abused. The officers asked L.M.'s mother to take L.M. to University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics for a sexual abuse examination. L.M.'s mother subsequently took L.M. to the hospital, where sexual assault nurse examiner Nicollet Markovetz conducted an examination. Although she was initially reluctant to cooperate, L.M. eventually related her history to Markovetz. L.M. reported she was fourteen years old and had engaged in a consensual sexual relationship over a period of several months with Lorant Wells.1 L.M. stated the last time she had sex with Wells was earlier that evening, and she came to the hospital because her parents required her to do so.
birth certificate revealed that he was twenty-four years old at the time he engaged in the sex acts with L.M.
1Wells's

3 L.M. told Markovetz she had recently been experiencing intermittent pain in her lower right abdomen. A school nurse had given L.M. a

pregnancy test the previous day, but the results were inconclusive. Markovetz administered another pregnancy test, which indicated L.M. was not pregnant. Markovetz performed a gynecological examination, during which she collected, pursuant to a sexual assault protocol, vaginal smears and swabs. Markovetz also collected oral swabs. She placed the evidence collected from L.M. in a sexual assault kit, sealed it, and delivered it to the hospital's storage facility. Three years later, in November 2004, an Iowa City police detective took "buccal swabs"2 from Lorant Wells. The detective correctly affixed Wells's name to the swabs and placed them in an envelope bearing Wells's police department case file number, but entered the name of "Lamont Wells" on a related evidence form. In December 2004, the detective obtained L.M.'s kit from the hospital and delivered it, along with the swabs harvested from Wells, to the Iowa City police evidence custodian. The custodian subsequently delivered both the kit and Wells's buccal swabs to a lab for testing. A DNA analyst found spermatozoa on L.M.'s vaginal smears and seminal fluid on one of L.M.'s oral swabs. The male DNA found on L.M.'s oral swab matched the DNA profile derived from Wells's buccal swabs.3 By a trial information filed on September 27, 2004, the State charged Wells with two counts of sexual abuse in the third degree, in violation of
swabs" are essentially long Q-tips used to collect DNA evidence from the mouth or other parts of the body. DNA analyst opined that fewer than one in one hundred billion unrelated individuals would be expected to have the same profile.
3The 2"Buccal

4 Iowa Code sections 709.4(2)(c)(4) (2001) and 702.17, and failure to register as a sex offender, in violation of sections 692A.2(1), 692A.3(1), and 692A.7.4 LeAnn Heun represented Wells at the outset of the case. On

December 22, 2004, Heun filed a motion to withdraw as Wells's attorney, which the court granted. Upon Wells's request, the court appointed Jeffrey Fields as Wells's new attorney. In the spring and summer of 2005, the district court received six letters from Wells expressing dissatisfaction with Fields and requesting appointment of a different attorney. The court sent a copy of each letter to Fields.5 After receiving a letter from Wells dated June 8, 2005, the court ordered Fields to have in-person contact with Wells and file a written report as to whether he would continue to represent Wells. The record contains no evidence that Fields ever filed such a report. On August 2, 2005, the court received a letter from a person who claimed to be a friend of Wells expressing concern over Wells's situation. The letter inquired why Wells had "been waiting so long" for resolution of his case and why Wells's attorney had not taken "time to speak with . . . Wells in person." The court forwarded this letter to Fields.6 The record does not document that the court made a further inquiry of Wells before trial as to either the requests for substitute counsel or the state of the lawyer-client relationship between Fields and Wells. Fields appeared as Wells's counsel during the trial. Neither L.M. nor her mother testified. Over Wells's hearsay and Confrontation Clause

objections, the district court received Markovetz's testimony recounting
the State's motion, the court later dismissed one count of sexual abuse as well as the count charging Wells with failure to register as a sex offender. letters were received and forwarded by a judge other than Judge Robinson, who subsequently presided at the trial of this case.
6Again, 5The 4Upon

it was not Judge Robinson who received and forwarded this letter to Fields.

5 L.M.'s out-of-court statement that she had sexual contact with Wells. The jury found Wells guilty of sexual abuse in the third degree. Wells filed a motion for new trial alleging in relevant part that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and that the district court had erred in ruling upon various questions of law during the trial. The district court denied the motion during the sentencing hearing stating: "I've reviewed the presentence report and I've also reviewed the defendant's motion for a new trial. The grounds for the motion are rulings that I made at the time of the trial, and I stand by those prior rulings." The court filed a written judgment and sentence stating: "The defendant's motion for new trial is denied. The verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence." Wells was

sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment not to exceed ten years.7 On appeal, Wells reasserts his claim that Markovetz's testimony included inadmissible hearsay and violated his right to confront a witness against him under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 10 of the Iowa Constitution. He also contends the district court failed to adequately inquire into the claimed breakdown of his relationship with Fields and applied an incorrect standard in overruling the motion for new trial. II. Scope of Review. State v.

Our review of Wells's constitutional claim is de novo. Castenada, 621 N.W.2d 435, 443 (Iowa 2001).

Our review of Wells's

contention that the district court failed to adequately inquire into the alleged breakdown of the attorney-client relationship is also de novo. State v. Tejeda, 677 N.W.2d 744, 749 (Iowa 2004). We review for errors at law

7The

court also imposed, but suspended, a $1000 fine.

6 Wells's claim that the district court failed to apply the proper standard in ruling on the motion for new trial. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. III. Admission of Markovetz's Testimony.

The Confrontation Clauses of the United States and Iowa Constitutions guarantee to Wells the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." U.S. Const. amend. VI; Iowa Const. art. I,

Download STATE OF IOWA vs. LORANT A. WELLS.pdf

Iowa Law