IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-1027 Filed September 18, 2024
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
BRIENNA LYNN KERLIN, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Peter B. Newell,
Judge.
A defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her
conviction. AFFIRMED.
Heidi Miller of The Law Office of Heidi Miller, Pleasantville, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Katherine Wenman, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Mullins, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2024). 2
MULLINS, Senior Judge.
Brienna Kerlin challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her
conviction for violating a custodial order. She argues the State failed to meet its
burden to show she concealed her child from the child’s father, who had physical
care of the child pursuant to a court order.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Kerlin and Charles Barrett are the unmarried parents of B.B., born in 2013.
A 2016 custody decree awarded Barrett physical care, with mid-week and
alternating weekend visitation to Kerlin. The decree authorized the parents to
deviate from that parenting time schedule upon agreement.
Barrett and B.B. lived in Charles City, Iowa. They lived in a home owned
by Barrett’s mother until January 11, 2022, when they had to move as a result of
the home being sold as part of Barrett’s mother’s estate proceeding. Barrett and
Kerlin agreed that B.B. would stay with Kerlin for “[t]hree or four” days while Barrett
moved into a new apartment.1 At the time, Barrett knew where Kerlin was living in
Rudd, Iowa. Barrett testified Kerlin did not return B.B. to him after the three or four
days they agreed upon. Barrett contacted Kerlin and told her to return B.B., but
Kerlin said she wouldn’t and ultimately didn’t. Kerlin advised Barrett he could come
pick up B.B. Barrett tried to do so twice, but on both occasions, Kerlin’s boyfriend
answered the door, refused to let Barrett in, and told him to get off his property.
Barrett did so.
1 Barrett’s new apartment fell through, so he stayed in a temporary apartment until
he arranged to move into a new home on February 1. 3
Barrett contacted local law enforcement multiple times, but “[t]hey told [him]
that there was nothing they could do” and he “needed an attorney,” which he
couldn’t afford. After Barrett’s attempts to go to Kerlin’s home and retrieve B.B.,
Kerlin applied for a protective order against Barrett, alleging he threatened her.
Kerlin also filed a petition to modify the custody decree. The protective order was
later dismissed for lack of evidence and the modification application was denied.
Barrett later found out that Kerlin contacted B.B.’s school in Charles City and
advised that B.B. had moved. Kerlin then enrolled B.B. in a different school district.
Call-for-service records show Kerlin told officers responding to Barrett’s calls that
she had full custody of B.B. and was in the process of switching her school.
In late January, Barrett filed a contempt application in the custody
proceeding, alleging Kerlin was refusing to bring B.B. home and had cut off all
contact. After apparently getting impatient, Barrett contacted the county attorney
directly on March 14 and reported Kerlin’s refusal to return B.B. and her recent
move to Rockford, Iowa, which she did without providing Barrett with her new
address. Barrett explained in his testimony that he only knew they were living in
Rockford because he did have contact with B.B. over the phone and through
messaging. However, B.B. or Kerlin never provided Barrett with a specific
address. He only learned of her address through court documents shortly before
he contacted the county attorney.
Investigator Dan Sargent of the Floyd County Sheriff’s Department was
contacted by the county attorney on March 14 and began looking into the matter.
He met with Barrett the following day and ultimately contacted Rockford school
officials and learned B.B. was enrolled there. Investigator Chad Weber went with 4
Barrett to the School to retrieve B.B., while Investigator Sargent filed a criminal
complaint against Kerlin for violating a custodial order, which was served upon
Kerlin later that day.
Kerlin’s boyfriend, Daniel Connerley testified that he picked up B.B. from
Barrett on January 10, and Barrett did not try to contact any of them for “a week
and a half or so.” After that, Barrett came to their house in Rudd on two occasions
to retrieve B.B. Connerley testified he asked Barrett to leave both times and, on
the second occasion, Barrett threatened Kerlin. Last, Connerley said they moved
to Rockford in early March.
Kerlin herself testified she became worried about B.B. being in Barrett’s
care in December 2021 when she found out the house they were living in went up
for sale. Kerlin claimed Connerley picked up B.B. on January 10, then four days
passed with no word from Barrett. So, according to Kerlin, she called Barrett, who
told her he lost his apartment and didn’t have a stable living arrangement. Kerlin
claimed she told Barrett thereafter that B.B. wanted to enroll in Rockford schools,
When Barrett didn’t agree, Kerlin filed her modification petition and believed she
was authorized to change B.B.’s school. According to Kerlin, she had “[q]uite a
few” discussions with Barrett about where she and B.B. were living, and she sent
him a “link” of where they were moving and told him what the address was on
March 1. She also claimed Barrett knew where they lived because he and B.B.
contacted each other through text messages. But, of the text messages between
Barrett and B.B. that Kerlin submitted as evidence, none of them discussed where
B.B. and Kerlin were living. Last, Kerlin claimed that she tried to return B.B. to 5
Barrett on one occasion, but he essentially wouldn’t give her a straight answer
about where he was living.2
Following the State’s case-in-chief at trial, Kerlin moved for judgment of
acquittal, arguing she did not conceal B.B. from Barrett because he learned by
March 1 that they were living in Rockford and had ongoing communication with
B.B. The court denied the motion, as well as the renewed motion following the
presentation of the evidence for the defense. The jury found Kerlin guilty as
charged, and she appealed following the imposition of sentence.
II. Standard of Review
We review challenges to the sufficiency of evidence for errors at law, giving
deference to the verdict. State v. Cahill, 972 N.W.2d 19, 27 (Iowa 2022). “We
view the evidence ‘in the light most favorable to the State, including all reasonable
inferences that may be fairly drawn from the evidence.’” State v. Ortiz, 905
N.W.2d 174, 180 (Iowa 2017) (quoting State v. Huser, 894 N.W.2d 472, 490
(Iowa 2017)). All evidence is considered, not just that of an inculpatory nature.
See Huser, 894 N.W.2d at 490. A verdict will be upheld if substantial evidence
supports it. State v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-1027 Filed September 18, 2024
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
BRIENNA LYNN KERLIN, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Peter B. Newell,
Judge.
A defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her
conviction. AFFIRMED.
Heidi Miller of The Law Office of Heidi Miller, Pleasantville, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Katherine Wenman, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Mullins, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2024). 2
MULLINS, Senior Judge.
Brienna Kerlin challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her
conviction for violating a custodial order. She argues the State failed to meet its
burden to show she concealed her child from the child’s father, who had physical
care of the child pursuant to a court order.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Kerlin and Charles Barrett are the unmarried parents of B.B., born in 2013.
A 2016 custody decree awarded Barrett physical care, with mid-week and
alternating weekend visitation to Kerlin. The decree authorized the parents to
deviate from that parenting time schedule upon agreement.
Barrett and B.B. lived in Charles City, Iowa. They lived in a home owned
by Barrett’s mother until January 11, 2022, when they had to move as a result of
the home being sold as part of Barrett’s mother’s estate proceeding. Barrett and
Kerlin agreed that B.B. would stay with Kerlin for “[t]hree or four” days while Barrett
moved into a new apartment.1 At the time, Barrett knew where Kerlin was living in
Rudd, Iowa. Barrett testified Kerlin did not return B.B. to him after the three or four
days they agreed upon. Barrett contacted Kerlin and told her to return B.B., but
Kerlin said she wouldn’t and ultimately didn’t. Kerlin advised Barrett he could come
pick up B.B. Barrett tried to do so twice, but on both occasions, Kerlin’s boyfriend
answered the door, refused to let Barrett in, and told him to get off his property.
Barrett did so.
1 Barrett’s new apartment fell through, so he stayed in a temporary apartment until
he arranged to move into a new home on February 1. 3
Barrett contacted local law enforcement multiple times, but “[t]hey told [him]
that there was nothing they could do” and he “needed an attorney,” which he
couldn’t afford. After Barrett’s attempts to go to Kerlin’s home and retrieve B.B.,
Kerlin applied for a protective order against Barrett, alleging he threatened her.
Kerlin also filed a petition to modify the custody decree. The protective order was
later dismissed for lack of evidence and the modification application was denied.
Barrett later found out that Kerlin contacted B.B.’s school in Charles City and
advised that B.B. had moved. Kerlin then enrolled B.B. in a different school district.
Call-for-service records show Kerlin told officers responding to Barrett’s calls that
she had full custody of B.B. and was in the process of switching her school.
In late January, Barrett filed a contempt application in the custody
proceeding, alleging Kerlin was refusing to bring B.B. home and had cut off all
contact. After apparently getting impatient, Barrett contacted the county attorney
directly on March 14 and reported Kerlin’s refusal to return B.B. and her recent
move to Rockford, Iowa, which she did without providing Barrett with her new
address. Barrett explained in his testimony that he only knew they were living in
Rockford because he did have contact with B.B. over the phone and through
messaging. However, B.B. or Kerlin never provided Barrett with a specific
address. He only learned of her address through court documents shortly before
he contacted the county attorney.
Investigator Dan Sargent of the Floyd County Sheriff’s Department was
contacted by the county attorney on March 14 and began looking into the matter.
He met with Barrett the following day and ultimately contacted Rockford school
officials and learned B.B. was enrolled there. Investigator Chad Weber went with 4
Barrett to the School to retrieve B.B., while Investigator Sargent filed a criminal
complaint against Kerlin for violating a custodial order, which was served upon
Kerlin later that day.
Kerlin’s boyfriend, Daniel Connerley testified that he picked up B.B. from
Barrett on January 10, and Barrett did not try to contact any of them for “a week
and a half or so.” After that, Barrett came to their house in Rudd on two occasions
to retrieve B.B. Connerley testified he asked Barrett to leave both times and, on
the second occasion, Barrett threatened Kerlin. Last, Connerley said they moved
to Rockford in early March.
Kerlin herself testified she became worried about B.B. being in Barrett’s
care in December 2021 when she found out the house they were living in went up
for sale. Kerlin claimed Connerley picked up B.B. on January 10, then four days
passed with no word from Barrett. So, according to Kerlin, she called Barrett, who
told her he lost his apartment and didn’t have a stable living arrangement. Kerlin
claimed she told Barrett thereafter that B.B. wanted to enroll in Rockford schools,
When Barrett didn’t agree, Kerlin filed her modification petition and believed she
was authorized to change B.B.’s school. According to Kerlin, she had “[q]uite a
few” discussions with Barrett about where she and B.B. were living, and she sent
him a “link” of where they were moving and told him what the address was on
March 1. She also claimed Barrett knew where they lived because he and B.B.
contacted each other through text messages. But, of the text messages between
Barrett and B.B. that Kerlin submitted as evidence, none of them discussed where
B.B. and Kerlin were living. Last, Kerlin claimed that she tried to return B.B. to 5
Barrett on one occasion, but he essentially wouldn’t give her a straight answer
about where he was living.2
Following the State’s case-in-chief at trial, Kerlin moved for judgment of
acquittal, arguing she did not conceal B.B. from Barrett because he learned by
March 1 that they were living in Rockford and had ongoing communication with
B.B. The court denied the motion, as well as the renewed motion following the
presentation of the evidence for the defense. The jury found Kerlin guilty as
charged, and she appealed following the imposition of sentence.
II. Standard of Review
We review challenges to the sufficiency of evidence for errors at law, giving
deference to the verdict. State v. Cahill, 972 N.W.2d 19, 27 (Iowa 2022). “We
view the evidence ‘in the light most favorable to the State, including all reasonable
inferences that may be fairly drawn from the evidence.’” State v. Ortiz, 905
N.W.2d 174, 180 (Iowa 2017) (quoting State v. Huser, 894 N.W.2d 472, 490
(Iowa 2017)). All evidence is considered, not just that of an inculpatory nature.
See Huser, 894 N.W.2d at 490. A verdict will be upheld if substantial evidence
supports it. State v. Wickes, 910 N.W.2d 554, 563 (Iowa 2018). “Evidence is
substantial if, ‘when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, it can convince
a rational jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id. (citation
omitted). Evidence is not rendered insubstantial merely because it might support
2 In their testimony, both Kerlin and Connerley admitted to previously being convicted of various crimes involving dishonesty or false statement. See Iowa R. Evid. 5.609(a)(2). 6
a different conclusion; the only question is whether the evidence supports the
finding actually made. See State v. Jones, 967 N.W.2d 336, 339 (Iowa 2021).
III. Discussion
The jury was instructed the State was required to prove, among other
things, that Kerlin concealed B.B. from Barrett in violation of a court order. In
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction, Kerlin argues
the State failed to meet its burden to show she concealed B.B. from Barrett.
According to Kerlin, the evidence shows B.B. was with her upon agreement of the
parents, Barrett knew of her whereabouts, and he was allowed contact with B.B.
Trouble is, Kerlin’s “challenge is entirely based on [her] slanted version of
events,” and “the jury did not have to accept that version.” State v. Thomas,
No. 22-1746, 2024 WL 960916, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2024). The evidence
shows Kerlin took steps to keep B.B. from Barrett after their agreed departure from
the terms of the custody decree expired. Kerlin refused to return B.B. and, when
Barrett attempted to retrieve her, he was turned away. Kerlin then applied for a
restraining order and changed B.B.’s school and residence without telling Barrett.
While Kerlin argues Barrett “knew at all times . . . where [B.B.] was residing and
attending school,” Barrett testified to the contrary. Viewing this evidence in the
light most favorable to the State, it could easily convince a rational jury that Kerlin
concealed B.B. from Barrett.
IV. Conclusion
We affirm the conviction as supported by substantial evidence.
AFFIRMED.