Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 90 / 04-0396 Filed May 19, 2006 STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, vs. THOMAS LEONARD CAMPBELL, Appellant.

On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Lawrence H. Fautsch, Judge.

Defendant convicted of four counts of burglary as an habitual offender appeals challenging an alleged denial of his right to speedy trial and limitations placed on his cross-examination of a State's witness. The court of appeals affirmed. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and David Arthur Adams, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, and Joel Dalrymple, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

2 CARTER, Justice. Defendant, Thomas Leonard Campbell, convicted of four counts of burglary as an habitual offender, appeals, challenging an alleged denial of his right to a speedy trial and the district court's limitation of his crossexamination of a State's witness. 1 The court of appeals affirmed

defendant's conviction. After reviewing the record and considering the arguments presented, we find that defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated. We do conclude, however, that the district court committed reversible error by improperly restricting his cross-examination of a State's witness. We vacate the decision of the court of appeals. The district court's judgment on the burglary charges is reversed and the case remanded to the district court for a new trial on those charges. On June 14, 2003, a neighbor of Hope Voshel, defendant's girlfriend, heard glass breaking in the vicinity of Voshel's residence. She had recently observed defendant arriving at the residence. The neighbor approached Voshel's home and observed that a window had been broken. At about this time, she witnessed defendant driving away from the residence. She then telephoned Voshel, who was at her brother's house. The neighbor informed Voshel of the broken window and defendant's apparent involvement in the matter. Voshel returned home to inspect the broken window. She then went to the police station to report what had happened and defendant's involvement in the incident. While she was at the police station, she

received a cell phone call from defendant in which he admitted that he had broken the window. Voshel told the police of defendant's conduct with regard to her broken window and also informed them that defendant had
was also convicted of the offense of criminal mischief in the third degree. We will dispose of that conviction summarily at the conclusion of our decision.
1Defendant

3 been involved in four recent burglaries in Waterloo involving a jewelry store, a clothing store, a hair salon, and an antique gallery. She told police that defendant had shown her a television set he had stolen from the hair salon. After speaking with Voshel, the police became aware that defendant was at the home of Tangala Saffold. They went to that residence and placed defendant under arrest. Saffold informed them that defendant and Voshel occasionally stayed at her home, and when this occurred, they occupied one particular room. At the time of defendant's arrest, police officers seized a coat identified as belonging to defendant. In the pockets, they discovered a mask and a pair of gloves. Additionally, acting with the consent of Saffold, the police searched the room in which defendant and Voshel sometimes stayed and seized a fur coat, a bag of shoes, several antique books, and an antique radio, all of which were later identified as items taken in recent burglaries. Later the same day, Voshel delivered to the police several items of jewelry, which she claimed defendant had taken in a burglary at Newton's Jewelry Store in Waterloo. In a trial information filed on June 27, 2003, defendant was charged with four counts of burglary involving the jewelry store, clothing store, hair salon, and antique gallery. He was also charged with malicious mischief in the third degree as a result of allegedly breaking a window at Voshel's home. He entered a plea of not guilty on all counts and demanded a speedy trial. The speedy-trial deadline was September 25, 2003. charges was initially scheduled for September 2. Trial of all

At the request of

defendant's counsel, it was rescheduled for September 9. On September 5 counsel for defendant advised the court that time was required to hear certain undisclosed legal issues to be raised by him. Although those issues were ultimately never asserted, the trial date was delayed to September 16 in anticipation that they would. On September 8 the State filed a notice of

4 additional minutes of testimony, listing several new witnesses against defendant. On September 10 defendant requested in writing that the court remove his court-appointed counsel, David Fiester. On September 12

defendant filed a pro se motion to suppress evidence of the items seized at Tangala Saffold's residence. On September 13 attorney Fiester noted that he had a conflict of interest with a jailhouse informant listed as a witness against defendant in the additional minutes of testimony that had recently been filed. He requested permission to withdraw for this reason. A hearing was held on September 15, 2003. With regard to the

matter of defendant's request for the removal of his court-appointed counsel, the presiding judge asked defendant whether he wanted to be represented by attorney Fiester. Defendant replied that he did not. In response to that answer, the judge told him, "Okay. Now you understand, I'm not saying what I'm going to do, but if you get a new lawyer your trial is going to be continued for probably three, four weeks. You can't have a new lawyer come in and be ready to go to trial in a week." Defendant responded by asking how long it would take to receive a ruling on his motion to suppress because he claimed that he was prepared to defend himself. The following colloquy then took place: THE COURT: Well, I mean, the only problem with that, sir, is you filed a motion to suppress. We can't have a motion to suppress before the trial tomorrow. That's just humanly impossible. And representing yourself, I have yet to see anybody who has done that effectively. Even people who have a college education and extensive education past that and understanding of the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the laws. What I'm willing to do is grant your request to have a new attorney appointed to represent you because of the conflict that exists between

Download STATE OF IOWA vs. THOMAS LEONARD CAMPBELL.pdf

Iowa Law