Skip to main content
Iowa Judicial Branch
Main Content

Case No. 17-0111

For summaries from opinions prior to August, 2018, view PDF versions here

State of Iowa
v.
Albert Garcia

Appellee

State of Iowa

Appellant

Albert Garcia

Attorneys for Appellee

Kyle P. Hanson, Assistant Attorney General

Attorneys for Appellant

Melinda J. Nye, Assistant Appellate Defender

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals Opinion

Opinion Number:
17-0111
Date Published:
Aug 15, 2018
Summary

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Douglas F. Staskal, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  Special Concurrence by Tabor and Potterfield, JJ.  (13 pages)

            Albert Garcia appeals his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of first-degree robbery, contending: (1) a police detective lacked the qualifications to provide expert testimony about cell phone technology; (2) accomplice testimony was not corroborated by sufficient evidence; (3) his trial attorney was ineffective in failing to object to an instruction informing the jury it could consider his out-of-court statements “just as if they had been made at trial”; and (4) his murder convictions and sentences should be vacated under a merger doctrine.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm Garcia’s judgment and sentences.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I would find counsel failed in an essential duty by not objecting earlier to the officer’s testimony regarding the use of cellular phone tower technology and data.  The State did not establish that the officer had specific knowledge of this technology.  I would also find the district court erred in instructing the jurors they could consider Garcia’s out-of-court statements “just as if they had been made at trial,” consistent with my prior dissenting opinions in State v. Yenger, No. 17-0592, 2018 WL 3060251, at *7 (Iowa Ct. App. June 20, 2018), and State v. Payne, No. 16-1672, 2018 WL 1182624, at *11–12 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2018).  Nonetheless, I join the majority because Garcia cannot show he was prejudiced as a result of these failures. 

© 2022 Iowa Judicial Branch. All Rights Reserved.