State of Iowa v. Kenji Talibe Meeks

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: March 29, 2023
• Docket: 22-0612
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-0612 Filed March 29, 2023

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

KENJI TALIBE MEEKS, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (South) County, Mark Kruse,

Judge.

A defendant appeals his burglary and theft convictions. AFFIRMED.

Raya D. Dimitrova of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ. 2

BADDING, Judge.

In this cautionary tale of online dating, Kenji Meeks—a lothario who “knew

how to say the right thing”—convinced a woman he had just met on a dating app

to let him move in with her. The end of their short-lived romance led to his

convictions as a habitual offender for third-degree burglary and first-degree theft.1

Meeks appeals, claiming the State failed to produce sufficient evidence on the

intent element for both convictions. We affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

Meeks met nineteen-year-old Madison on a dating app in early September

2021. The same day that they started chatting on the app, Madison drove to Illinois

where Meeks was staying with a friend, picked him up, and brought him back to

the home she shared with her mother in Iowa. Madison had the weekend off from

work and planned to drive Meeks back home at some point, but he just “ended up

staying.”

Meeks told Madison and her mother that he had a bad relationship with his

family. So they tried to help Meeks by giving him a place to live, driving him to job

interviews, and letting him use their address on applications. But Madison’s

mother soon started seeing “red flags.” One of those red flags came on a trip to

the mall with Meeks when Madison opened two credit card accounts in her name

and used one to purchase new clothes for Meeks’s son.

Another came about a week after Meeks started living with Madison. Meeks

persuaded her to buy two phones on contract, a Galaxy Z Fold for Meeks and a

1 Meeks was also convicted of domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury and first-degree harassment, but he does not challenge those convictions on appeal. 3

Galaxy Z Flip for Madison. Even though Madison already had an iPhone, she felt

like she couldn’t say no to Meeks. Because Madison had the better credit score,

both phones were put under her name. Meeks traded in his own iPhone to pay

the initial deposit on the new phones, and he agreed to pay the monthly bill for the

Galaxy phones. But he never paid the bill. Madison rarely used the Galaxy Z Flip

phone, which she kept in her car, instead preferring the iPhone she already had.

Madison’s relationship with Meeks quickly went downhill. One day, Meeks

called Madison with a cell phone representative on the other line to add an iPhone

to her account. She hung up because she was at work. On another occasion,

Meeks asked Madison if he could have the Galaxy Z Flip phone, and she said no.

He then told Madison that he would put her dog’s kennel in her car at work.

Madison gave Meeks her car keys, but rather than putting the kennel in the car, he

took the flip phone out of her car. Soon after, Madison’s mother told her that she

did not want Meeks in the house anymore, so he moved out. Madison asked for

the Galaxy phones back, but Meeks refused.

While all this was going on, Meeks started a relationship with a different

woman named Rikki. After Meeks left Madison’s house, he came back a few times

with Rikki to get some things that he had left there. And he still sometimes spent

the night with Madison, as he did on September 23, 2021, after a fight with Rikki.

Early that morning, around 2:00 or 3:00 a.m., Meeks called Madison and

asked to be let into the house because he didn’t have a key. She let him in and

then went back to sleep. Before 9:30 a.m., as she was getting ready for work,

Madison heard someone on the front porch. She opened the door and saw a

bunch of bags. Rikki was coming up the steps “with more stuff, and she said, you 4

need to watch out for [Meeks], I’m scared for my life, he’s been threatening me.”

Madison went upstairs to her bedroom where Meeks was to “tell him that his friend

had dropped all his stuff off,” and he said, “yeah, because she’s a miserable bitch.”

On her way to work, Madison became uncomfortable with the idea of

leaving Meeks alone in the house. So she went back to tell him to leave. Meeks

refused. Madison threatened to call the police, but he took her iPhone out of her

hands and said, “you’re not calling shit.” Madison tried to get the phone back, but

Meeks pushed her and eventually ran out of the house with the phone.

Madison went to her mother’s work, “very distraught, crying, screaming,

throwing up.” The two went back to the house and called the police. An officer

came to speak with them and then asked Madison to go to the station to give a

statement. Before they went to the station, Madison’s mother put everything that

Rikki had dropped off for Meeks in the living room and locked the door. While the

officer was waiting for Madison at the station, he called Meeks, who admitted that

he had “snatched” Madison’s iPhone from her. But he told the officer that he left

the phone on the back porch. Even though Madison’s home does not have a back

porch, the officer asked Madison’s mother to go look for the phone while Madison

gave her statement. It was nowhere to be found.

While Madison and her mother were gone, neighbors called the police to

report seeing a person who looked like Meeks push in the air conditioning unit at

Madison’s home and climb in the window. One of the neighbors then saw Meeks

“come running around the side of the house.” A car with Illinois license plates was

waiting for him. Meeks threw some clothes and shoes into the car, which drove

off without him. By the time officers got to the house, there was no sign of Meeks. 5

The front door was wide open, and his things inside were gone, aside from a couple

of shoes on the ground. Later, Madison noticed her AirPods and a red JBL speaker

that had been on her bedroom nightstand that morning were missing.

That afternoon, Madison heard from some family members who were

worried her phone had been hacked. They had received some text messages from

her asking for money. And they saw that some nude photos of Madison had been

posted on her social media accounts. The photos were only accessible on

Madison’s missing iPhone. She believed that Meeks posted the photos to get back

at her because she had the cell phone company turn off the Galaxy phones.

As a result of these events, Meeks was charged with burglary in the third

degree, theft in the first degree, domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury, and

harassment in the first degree, with a habitual offender enhancement for the

burglary and theft charges. The case proceeded to a jury trial where Meeks

represented himself. Although he did not testify in his own defense, he told the

jury in his closing argument that he was an “innocent young man,” who had been

retaliated against by angry women he had scorned. The jury didn’t buy it and found

him guilty as charged. Meeks appeals.

II. Standard of Review

Challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction are

reviewed for correction of errors at law. State v. Crawford, 974 N.W.2d 510, 517

(Iowa 2022). We consider “whether, taken in the light most favorable to the State,

the finding of guilt is supported by substantial evidence in the record.” State v

Meyers, 799 N.W.2d 132, 138 (Iowa 2011). Substantial evidence exists when the 6

evidence “would convince a rational fact finder the defendant is guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt.” Id.

III. Analysis

A. Burglary

We begin with Meeks’s challenge to his third-degree burglary conviction.

The jury was instructed the State would have to prove the following to find him

guilty of that crime:

1. On or about the 23rd day of September, 2021, the defendant did break into or enter a residence. . . . 2. The residence was an occupied structure. 3. The defendant did not have permission or authority to break into or enter the residence. 4. The residence was not open to the public. 5. The defendant did so with the specific intent to commit a theft.

Meeks claims the State failed to prove the last element because he only “entered

the residence to reclaim his own property,” not to steal Madison’s. We disagree.

As Meeks points out, direct evidence of specific intent is rare. See State v.

Gay, No. 19-1354, 2021 WL 4889239, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2021); see

also State v. Ernst, 954 N.W.2d 50, 55 (Iowa 2021). So it is often “shown by

circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence.”

Ernst, 954 N.W.2d at 55 (citation omitted). “The requirement of proof beyond a

reasonable doubt is satisfied if it is more likely than not that the inference of intent

is true.” State v. Finnel, 515 N.W.2d 41, 42 (Iowa 1994). The State is “not required

to refute every possible inference from the evidence,” as Meeks seems to suggest.

Ernst, 954 N.W.2d at 57. 7

The record contains substantial evidence that Meeks broke into Madison’s

home with the specific intent to commit a theft. Meeks did not have a key to the

house. So to get inside, he had to push the air conditioning unit out of a window

and crawl through. See Gay, 2021 WL 4889239, at *2 (“One can reasonably infer

an intent to commit theft ‘from the evidence of surreptitious entry and other

circumstances.’” (quoting Ernst, 954 N.W.2d at 55)). He told a neighbor who saw

this that he had locked himself out of the house, which was a lie, and needed to

get some things. See State v. Cox, 500 N.W.2d 23, 25 (Iowa 1993) (“A false story

told by a defendant to explain or deny a material fact against him is by itself an

indication of guilt.”). Another neighbor testified that he saw Meeks running around

the side of the house before throwing clothes and shoes into a waiting car. The

neighbor said Meeks “was in a hurry.” See Gay, 2021 WL 4889239, at *2 (finding

that the jury could infer an intent to commit theft based on evidence the defendant

fled from a garage when a vehicle approached it); see also Finnel, 515 N.W.2d

at 42 (noting intent may be inferred from a defendant’s acts preceding and

following an unauthorized entry).

True, Meeks did take his own property from the residence. But he also took

some of Madison’s. She testified that when she went through the house after the

break-in, she noticed that her AirPods and red JBL speaker were missing. Both

had been on the nightstand in her bedroom, where Meeks spent the night, when

she left for work that morning. The jury could reasonably infer from this evidence

that Meeks stole these items while he was in the house, even though the neighbor

only saw him leave with clothes and shoes. See State v. Doiel, No. 16-1487, 2017

WL 4049493, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 13, 2017) (finding a rational jury could infer 8

the defendant entered the apartment to steal pills when the pills were missing after

the unauthorized entry); see also State v. Oetken, 613 N.W.2d 679, 686

(Iowa 2000) (finding that the evidence “overwhelmingly indicated” the defendant

“intended to commit theft by breaking into private residences, and stealing

firearms, televisions, and other personal property”).

Considering all the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict,

including reasonable inferences to be drawn from it, we conclude that Meeks’s

conviction for third-degree is supported by substantial evidence.

B. Theft

For the first-degree theft charge, the jury was instructed that the State had

to prove the following:

1. On or about the 23rd day of September, 2021, the defendant took possession or control of an iPhone 12 Max Pro belonging to Madison. . . . 2. The defendant did so with the intent to deprive Madison . . . of the iPhone 12 Max Pro. 3. The iPhone 12 Max Pro was taken from the person of Madison. . . .

Meeks again focuses on the intent element, arguing that because he “returned the

phone the same day it was taken, he did not take the phone with the intent to

deprive.”

Had Meeks actually returned Madison’s phone, this argument might have

some merit. See State v. Berger, 438 N.W.2d 29, 31 (Iowa Ct. App. 1989) (holding

that intent to deprive “requires more than a temporary dispossessing of another’s

property”). But Madison’s mother did not find the phone at the house when she

went to look for it. And Madison testified the phone was never returned to her.

The jury was free to believe their testimony over Meeks’s claim that he left the 9

phone on Madison’s back porch, especially considering the house did not have a

back porch. See State v. Brimmer, 983 N.W.2d 247, 256 (Iowa 2022) (“It is not

our place ‘to resolve conflicts in the evidence, to pass upon the credibility of

witnesses, to determine the plausibility of explanations, or to weigh the evidence;

such matters are for the jury.’” (citation omitted)); accord State v. Carruthers,

No. 13-1638, 2014 WL 4630059, *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2014) (finding that

the jury was free to disbelieve the defendant’s “claim that she intended to turn the

cell phone in to local police”).

The evidence also showed that after Meeks admittedly “snatched” the

phone from Madison’s hands and left with it, nude photos were posted to her social

media accounts. Madison testified that these photos were only accessible from

her phone. While her phone was password protected, she believed that Meeks

knew the password from when they lived together. The jury credited this testimony

in finding Meeks guilty of first-degree harassment for posting the nude photos—a

conviction that Meeks has not challenged on appeal. Madison also testified that

when she tried to find her phone using its locator app, the app had been disabled

and her Apple password had been changed. From all this evidence, a reasonable

jury could conclude that Meeks intended to permanently deprive Madison of her

phone.

IV. Conclusion

Because substantial evidence supports Meeks’s convictions for third-

degree burglary and first-degree theft, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.