State of Iowa
v.
Dillon Michael Heiller
Appellee
State of Iowa
Appellant
Dillon Michael Heiller
Attorney for the Appellee
David Banta
Attorney for the Appellant
Shea M. Chapin
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Allamakee County, John Bauercamper, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument en banc. Opinion by Ahlers, J. Partial Dissent by Tabor, C.J. (20 pages)
Dillon Heiller appeals from his convictions for first-degree theft and second-degree theft for the taking of two separate vehicles. He contends the evidence is insufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction on one charge and is insufficient as to the taking and intent elements on both charges. OPINION HOLDS: Heiller’s territorial-jurisdiction argument is not a sufficiency challenge. Instead, it is an attack on the marshaling instruction for failure to include a territorial-jurisdiction element. But Heiller did not object to the instruction, so he failed to preserve error on that claim. To the extent that he intends to raise a constitutional challenge, he failed to preserve error by raising that claim in the district court. To the extent that Heiller argues that territorial jurisdiction is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction, we disagree. As to his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on the taking and intent elements of both charges, we find substantial evidence supporting the jury’s guilty verdicts. PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: The majority’s approach disregards a clear statement of law that is binding on our court and anchors its analysis to Heiller’s jury instruction claim without addressing the sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim. Territorial jurisdiction is an essential element of the offense, and the State failed to offer substantial evidence to show any element took place in Iowa. Under our precedents, I would reverse Heiller’s second-degree theft conviction and remand for dismissal.
