Skip to main content
Iowa Judicial Branch
Main Content

Case No. 17-1715

State of Iowa
v.
Tony E. Doolin

Appellant seeks further review of a court of appeals decision affirming the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the victim’s in-court identification and failing to seek a jury instruction regarding identifications. He also argues there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for carrying weapons.

County:
Black Hawk
Trial Court Case No.:
FECR208087

Resister

State of Iowa

Applicant

Tony E. Doolin

Attorneys for Resister

Darrel Mullins

Attorneys for Applicant

Maria Ruhtenberg

Supreme Court

Oral Argument Schedule

15-15-5

Oct 21, 2019 9:00 AM Iowa Supreme Court Courtroom

Briefs

Supreme Court Opinion

Opinion Number:
17-1715
Date Published:
Apr 24, 2020

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals Opinion

Opinion Number:
17-1715
Date Published:
Mar 06, 2019
Summary

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Joel A. Dalrymple, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (7 pages)

            Tony Eugene Doolin appeals the judgment and sentence entered following his convictions for intimidation with a dangerous weapon, assault while participating in a felony, and carrying weapons.  OPINION HOLDS: I. Because the record is incomplete as to why counsel did not object to the in-court identification and request a jury instruction on eyewitness identification, we decline to reach Doolin’s claims his trial counsel was ineffective in order to allow Doolin to raise them in a postconviction-relief action.  II. When viewed in the light most favorable to the State, there is sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find Doolin was under the influence based on a police officer’s testimony regarding his observation of Doolin and his belief that Doolin was impaired.  III. Because the evidence does not preponderate heavily against a finding that Doolin was the assailant, the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Doolin’s motion for a new trial. 

View archived opinions from prior to November 2017

© 2020 Iowa Judicial Branch. All Rights Reserved.