State of Iowa v. Mark Anthony Ross

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: July 2, 2025
• Docket: 24-1194
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-1194 Filed July 2, 2025

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MARK ANTHONY ROSS, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Page County, Justin R. Wyatt,

Judge.

A criminal defendant appeals his conviction for theft in the third degree.

AFFIRMED.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Melinda J. Nye, Assistant

Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Adam Kenworthy, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and

Sandy, JJ. 2

BULLER, Judge.

Mark Ross appeals his conviction for theft in the third degree, challenging

sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm, based in part on credibility determinations

made by the district court as fact-finder.

Background Facts and Proceedings. While walking his “little dog” around

dawn in downtown Shenandoah, an eyewitness spotted two men walking quickly

down an alley carrying spools of wire. The men took off running as the eyewitness

approached, which the eyewitness thought suspicious enough he called 911.

Although he was later shown surveillance footage of the men, it was too dark that

night for the witness to identify them.

Shenandoah police officers arrived shortly after the 911 call. They spotted

Ross closing a dumpster lid at the end of the alley, and he started walking away

when he spotted the officers. One officer went to check the dumpster and found

a spool of wire. As the officer closed the lid, Curtis Clark pulled into the alley in a

truck to pick up Ross, then pulled away before stopping to talk with the officers.

Based in part on reviewing surveillance footage from a nearby business and

considering the build and attire of the men on the video and in the alley encounter,

officers identified Ross and Clark as the men gathering and carrying the stolen

wire down the alley toward the dumpster. Officers also identified Clark as the man

stripping the wire from a conduit, while Ross stood nearby. On cross-examination,

an officer testified regarding criminal complaints1 filed against Clark and a third

1 We note the court overruled a hearsay objection based on defense counsel’s

representation the complaints were “not offered for the truth of the matter asserted,” only for Ross to claim at trial and on appeal that they were true. 3

person who allegedly served as a lookout for the theft. The owner of the wire

testified he did not abandon the wire. And the owner of the dumpster said he did

not put the wire in the dumpster.

Ross elected a bench trial and was found guilty of the recidivist alternative

of theft in the third degree, an aggravated misdemeanor in violation of Iowa Code

section 714.1(1) and 714.2(3) (2023). He stipulated to two prior convictions for

theft, and the court sentenced him to prison. He appeals.

Standard of Review. We review sufficiency claims for correction of errors

at law. State v. Jones, 967 N.W.2d 336, 339 (Iowa 2021). “In determining whether

the [fact-finder]’s verdict is supported by substantial evidence, we view the

evidence in the light most favorable to the State, including all ‘legitimate inferences

and presumptions that may fairly and reasonably be deduced from the record

evidence.’” Id. (citation omitted).

Discussion. Ross challenges sufficiency of the evidence proving he took

the wire and intended to permanently deprive another of possession. As for the

taking element, the district court credited the officers’ testimony that Ross and

Clark were the two men seen carrying the wire by the eyewitness and in the

surveillance video. This conclusion was buttressed by officers seeing Ross close

the dumpster lid where the wire was found just before Clark pulled up in the truck.

And as for the intent to permanently deprive, the court reasonably inferred that

taking wire from one location and secreting it away in another evidenced intent to

permanently deprive. The district court’s verdict, based in part on credibility

determinations we decline to disturb, was supported by substantial evidence.