State of Iowa v. Kemp Patrick Reynolds

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: September 27, 2023
• Docket: 22-2092
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-2092 Filed September 27, 2023

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

KEMP PATRICK REYNOLDS, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Kevin Parker,

District Associate Judge.

Kemp Patrick Reynolds appeals his two convictions for driving while barred

as a habitual offender. AFFIRMED.

John C. Heinicke of Kragnes & Associates, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Thomas E. Bakke and Martha E. Trout,

Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Considered by Bower, C.J., and Ahlers and Chicchelly, JJ. 2

CHICCHELLY, Judge.

Kemp Patrick Reynolds appeals his two convictions for driving while barred

as a habitual offender. Because substantial evidence supports his convictions, we

affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

Reynolds was stopped by law enforcement on two isolated occasions in

2021. The first occurred in October of that year, while the latter occurred in

November. At the time of each stop, both officers confirmed Reynolds was driving

while his license was barred. As a result, he was charged with two separate

charges of driving while barred. Following a nonjury trial, Reynolds was convicted

on both charges. He was sentenced to twenty days total in jail.

II. Scope and Standard of Review.

We review sufficiency-of-evidence challenges for the correction of errors at

law. State v. Huser, 894 N.W.2d 472, 490 (Iowa 2017). We consider the evidence

“in the light most favorable to the State, including all reasonable inferences that

may be fairly drawn from the evidence.” Id. (quoting State v. Sanford, 814 N.W.2d

611, 615 (Iowa 2012)). If substantial evidence supports the verdict, we affirm.

Sanford, 814 N.W.2d at 615.

III. Sufficiency of Evidence.

Reynolds contends there was insufficient evidence to support his guilty

verdict. He bases this insufficiency on the State’s lack of proof that Reynolds was

notified of his license status. To establish guilt for driving while barred, the State

must prove (1) that a person was operating a motor vehicle and (2) the person’s

license was barred at the time. State v. Williams, 910 N.W.2d 586, 591 3

(Iowa 2018). The State is not required to prove that notice was provided. Id. at

594. While Reynolds makes a nonfrivolous argument to follow a dissenting view,

we decline to adopt it and instead apply the existing law. See State v. Beck, 854

N.W.2d 56, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014) (“We are not at liberty to overrule controlling

precedent.”). The State presented evidence of the two traffic stops, law

enforcement’s confirmation that Reynolds was driving with a barred license, and

Reynolds’s admission he was aware he did not have a license. Viewing the

evidence in the State’s favor, substantial evidence supports the guilty verdict. See

Huser, 894 N.W.2d at 490.

IV. Conclusion.

Because substantial evidence supports Reynolds’s convictions for driving

while barred, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.