State of Iowa
v.
Austin Michael Muilenberg
Appellee
State of Iowa
Appellant
Austin Michael Muilenberg
Attorney for the Appellee
Timothy M. Hau, Assistant Attorney General
Attorney for the Appellant
Theresa R. Wilson, Assistant Appellate Defender
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Patrick M. Carr (suppression) and Nancy L. Whittenburg (trial), Judges. AFFIRMED. Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ. Carr, S.J., takes no part. Opinion by Mullins, J. Special concurrence by Tabor, P.J. (18 pages)
Austin Muilenburg appeals his convictions of three drug-related crimes following a trial on the minutes of evidence. He argues: (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence, contending the warrant was unsupported by probable cause; (2) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to challenge the probable cause supporting the warrant, specifically the qualifications of the police officer who applied for the warrant; and (3) there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions of possession of cocaine and prescription drugs without a valid prescription. OPINION HOLDS: We find there was a substantial basis for the issuing magistrate to conclude probable cause existed for the issuance of the search warrant and the search of Muilenburg’s bedroom did not exceed the scope of the warrant. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Muilenburg’s motion to suppress. We find Muilenburg has not shown he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We additionally find there is sufficient evidence to support Muilenburg’s convictions for possession of cocaine and prescription drugs without a valid prescription. SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I write separately because I disagree with the majority’s assertion that knowledge of the nature of the prescription drugs is not an element of Iowa Code section 155A.21(1) (2017). The court in State v. Reeves, 209 N.W.2d 18, 23 (Iowa 1973), found proof of unlawful “possession” requires the State to establish the accused knew of the nature of the substance in his or her possession. I believe the same proof requirement applies to the term “possession” in section 155A.21(1).
