IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-1951 Filed January 9, 2025
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
SEAN CHRISTOPHER BRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Elizabeth Dupuich,
Judge.
A defendant convicted for failing to appear at sentencing in a separate
criminal matter appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for new trial.
AFFIRMED.
Webb L. Wassmer of Wassmer Law Office, PLC, Marion, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and David Banta, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Greer, P.J., Langholz, J., and Telleen, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2025). 2
TELLEEN, Senior Judge.
I. Background
This case begins where another was supposed to end. In 2022, Sean Bright
pled guilty to a criminal charge for possessing a firearm. Bright was released on
bond pending a sentencing hearing set for January 3, 2023, in Linn County. But
when that day arrived, he wasn’t in the courtroom. According to Bright, he was
somewhere in northern Georgia, out of gas and short on money. The State says
he was hiding. A jury found Bright guilty of failing to appear in violation of Iowa
Code section 811.2(8) (2023). Bright appeals the denial of his motion for new trial,
arguing the weight of the evidence shows his absence was involuntary.
II. Discussion
Our rules of criminal procedure permit a district court to order a new trial if
the jury’s verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Iowa R. Crim.
P. 2.24(2)(b)(7) (2023). A new trial is appropriate “only in the extraordinary case
in which the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict rendered.” State
v. Ernst, 954 N.W.2d 50, 60 (Iowa 2021). “The question for the court is not whether
there was sufficient credible evidence to support the verdict rendered or an
alternative verdict, but whether a greater amount of credible evidence suggests
the verdict rendered was a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Ary, 877 N.W.2d 686,
706 (Iowa 2016) (cleaned up). In answering that question, the district court may
weigh the evidence and consider the credibility of witnesses. Id. Our review is for
abuse of discretion. Ernst, 954 N.W.2d at 60.
A criminal defendant released pending entry of judgment may be convicted
of a new offense if the defendant “willfully fails to appear” in court as ordered. Iowa 3
Code § 811.2(8). We have interpreted a willful failure to mean “a deliberate or
intended violation, as distinguished from an accidental, inadvertent, or negligent
violation of an order.” State v. Brown, No. 01-0742, 2002 WL 22184, at *1 (Iowa
Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2002) (per curiam). Bright contends the trial evidence weighs
heavily against a finding of willfulness—primarily based on his own testimony
about a series of mishaps that left him stranded out-of-state on the day of his
sentencing. We begin with Bright’s version of events.
1. Bright’s Account
Bright testified that on December 26, 2022, he decided to take a trip to
Florida. He wanted to cross skydiving off his “bucket list.” Bright and his wife had
been saving for a getaway, and so they boarded their vehicle with $1800 cash and
left Cedar Rapids for the coast. By the 28th, they had reached Alabama. It was
there that the couple realized both of their phones were missing. According to
Bright, they hadn’t been “using [the phones] at all, but [they] did tear the truck
apart” in an unsuccessful attempt to find them.
Bright and his wife arrived in the Viero Beach area on December 31. Some
fellow skydivers at the hotel where they stayed told them about a jump site in
nearby Sebastian, Florida. The next morning—New Year’s Day—Bright took his
leap. A commemorative certificate was admitted at trial. The thrill was over by
noon, and the couple turned back toward Iowa. To Bright’s recollection, the return
trip from Florida was supposed to take about seventeen hours. He planned to be
back by the afternoon of January 2, well in advance of his January 3 sentencing.
He testified that he “fully” and “absolutely” intended to be in court. 4
Bright claims misfortune intervened. According to his testimony, the couple
stopped for gas just past the Georgia border, and they learned their money was
missing. Bright’s account as to what happened next was muddled. On direct
examination, he alleged the “first thing” he did was pawn a laptop for $50 of gas
money. When asked on cross about how he found a pawn shop open on New
Year’s Day, Bright revised his account—explaining that, after learning the money
was gone, he and his wife spent the night in a Walmart parking lot before setting
out for a pawnshop on the morning of January 2.
Bright testified that when the laptop money ran dry, he and his wife pawned
some jewelry for another three-quarters tank, which carried them as far as northern
Georgia. But at that point, the couple was “dead in the water.” They were out of
gas, and they “didn’t have really anything else to get rid of.” According to Bright,
they spent ten days stuck in place. Neither Bright nor his wife ever attempted to
alert Bright’s attorney or seek the assistance of his friends or relatives in Iowa.
Eventually, the couple was able to sell some camping gear for nearly enough
money to make it home. A handout from a gas station owner took them the last
100 miles. Bright was taken into custody forty-five minutes after returning to Cedar
Rapids.
2. The State’s Case
The State’s lead witness was Tammy O’Connor, whose company posted
the $5000 bond securing Bright’s pre-sentence release. O’Connor testified
regarding the routine reminders her office sent Bright and his wife by text message
regarding approaching court dates in Bright’s case. Bright had been “very good
about checking in.” But when O’Connor sent Bright a message on December 30 5
to confirm his upcoming sentencing, he didn’t respond. O’Connor tried to reach
Bright by phone. The parties agree that Bright called O’Connor on December 31
to confirm he was aware of his court date.
O’Connor testified that, on January 2, several of Bright’s friends and family
members informed her that he had sold his truck and left town for Florida.
O’Connor also saw a Facebook post describing the couple as missing persons.
Concerned that Bright planned to skip bail, O’Connor circulated her own post
stating she believed Bright was “on the run” and requesting information as to his
whereabouts. O’Connor’s post was shared over 900 times. On January 19, she
received a tip that Bright was back in Cedar Rapids. O’Connor located Bright the
same day and turned him over to police.
The State also introduced recordings of jail calls placed by Bright on the day
of his arrest. In one of the calls, Bright’s daughter informs him she was questioned
by federal investigators. Bright asks, “you didn’t tell them anything, did you?” In
another, Bright’s wife—who was also questioned—tells Bright that the FBI knew
about a TracFone with a Florida number that Bright used to contact family and
friends in Iowa.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-1951 Filed January 9, 2025
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
SEAN CHRISTOPHER BRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Elizabeth Dupuich,
Judge.
A defendant convicted for failing to appear at sentencing in a separate
criminal matter appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for new trial.
AFFIRMED.
Webb L. Wassmer of Wassmer Law Office, PLC, Marion, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and David Banta, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Greer, P.J., Langholz, J., and Telleen, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2025). 2
TELLEEN, Senior Judge.
I. Background
This case begins where another was supposed to end. In 2022, Sean Bright
pled guilty to a criminal charge for possessing a firearm. Bright was released on
bond pending a sentencing hearing set for January 3, 2023, in Linn County. But
when that day arrived, he wasn’t in the courtroom. According to Bright, he was
somewhere in northern Georgia, out of gas and short on money. The State says
he was hiding. A jury found Bright guilty of failing to appear in violation of Iowa
Code section 811.2(8) (2023). Bright appeals the denial of his motion for new trial,
arguing the weight of the evidence shows his absence was involuntary.
II. Discussion
Our rules of criminal procedure permit a district court to order a new trial if
the jury’s verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Iowa R. Crim.
P. 2.24(2)(b)(7) (2023). A new trial is appropriate “only in the extraordinary case
in which the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict rendered.” State
v. Ernst, 954 N.W.2d 50, 60 (Iowa 2021). “The question for the court is not whether
there was sufficient credible evidence to support the verdict rendered or an
alternative verdict, but whether a greater amount of credible evidence suggests
the verdict rendered was a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Ary, 877 N.W.2d 686,
706 (Iowa 2016) (cleaned up). In answering that question, the district court may
weigh the evidence and consider the credibility of witnesses. Id. Our review is for
abuse of discretion. Ernst, 954 N.W.2d at 60.
A criminal defendant released pending entry of judgment may be convicted
of a new offense if the defendant “willfully fails to appear” in court as ordered. Iowa 3
Code § 811.2(8). We have interpreted a willful failure to mean “a deliberate or
intended violation, as distinguished from an accidental, inadvertent, or negligent
violation of an order.” State v. Brown, No. 01-0742, 2002 WL 22184, at *1 (Iowa
Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2002) (per curiam). Bright contends the trial evidence weighs
heavily against a finding of willfulness—primarily based on his own testimony
about a series of mishaps that left him stranded out-of-state on the day of his
sentencing. We begin with Bright’s version of events.
1. Bright’s Account
Bright testified that on December 26, 2022, he decided to take a trip to
Florida. He wanted to cross skydiving off his “bucket list.” Bright and his wife had
been saving for a getaway, and so they boarded their vehicle with $1800 cash and
left Cedar Rapids for the coast. By the 28th, they had reached Alabama. It was
there that the couple realized both of their phones were missing. According to
Bright, they hadn’t been “using [the phones] at all, but [they] did tear the truck
apart” in an unsuccessful attempt to find them.
Bright and his wife arrived in the Viero Beach area on December 31. Some
fellow skydivers at the hotel where they stayed told them about a jump site in
nearby Sebastian, Florida. The next morning—New Year’s Day—Bright took his
leap. A commemorative certificate was admitted at trial. The thrill was over by
noon, and the couple turned back toward Iowa. To Bright’s recollection, the return
trip from Florida was supposed to take about seventeen hours. He planned to be
back by the afternoon of January 2, well in advance of his January 3 sentencing.
He testified that he “fully” and “absolutely” intended to be in court. 4
Bright claims misfortune intervened. According to his testimony, the couple
stopped for gas just past the Georgia border, and they learned their money was
missing. Bright’s account as to what happened next was muddled. On direct
examination, he alleged the “first thing” he did was pawn a laptop for $50 of gas
money. When asked on cross about how he found a pawn shop open on New
Year’s Day, Bright revised his account—explaining that, after learning the money
was gone, he and his wife spent the night in a Walmart parking lot before setting
out for a pawnshop on the morning of January 2.
Bright testified that when the laptop money ran dry, he and his wife pawned
some jewelry for another three-quarters tank, which carried them as far as northern
Georgia. But at that point, the couple was “dead in the water.” They were out of
gas, and they “didn’t have really anything else to get rid of.” According to Bright,
they spent ten days stuck in place. Neither Bright nor his wife ever attempted to
alert Bright’s attorney or seek the assistance of his friends or relatives in Iowa.
Eventually, the couple was able to sell some camping gear for nearly enough
money to make it home. A handout from a gas station owner took them the last
100 miles. Bright was taken into custody forty-five minutes after returning to Cedar
Rapids.
2. The State’s Case
The State’s lead witness was Tammy O’Connor, whose company posted
the $5000 bond securing Bright’s pre-sentence release. O’Connor testified
regarding the routine reminders her office sent Bright and his wife by text message
regarding approaching court dates in Bright’s case. Bright had been “very good
about checking in.” But when O’Connor sent Bright a message on December 30 5
to confirm his upcoming sentencing, he didn’t respond. O’Connor tried to reach
Bright by phone. The parties agree that Bright called O’Connor on December 31
to confirm he was aware of his court date.
O’Connor testified that, on January 2, several of Bright’s friends and family
members informed her that he had sold his truck and left town for Florida.
O’Connor also saw a Facebook post describing the couple as missing persons.
Concerned that Bright planned to skip bail, O’Connor circulated her own post
stating she believed Bright was “on the run” and requesting information as to his
whereabouts. O’Connor’s post was shared over 900 times. On January 19, she
received a tip that Bright was back in Cedar Rapids. O’Connor located Bright the
same day and turned him over to police.
The State also introduced recordings of jail calls placed by Bright on the day
of his arrest. In one of the calls, Bright’s daughter informs him she was questioned
by federal investigators. Bright asks, “you didn’t tell them anything, did you?” In
another, Bright’s wife—who was also questioned—tells Bright that the FBI knew
about a TracFone with a Florida number that Bright used to contact family and
friends in Iowa. He then states, “I told them we were on vacation,” and “I’m sticking
to that; we were not running.” Bright’s wife assures him that she told the FBI “the
only reason we went back and forth from Florida is because we were out of money
and looking for work.”
3. Weight of the Evidence
The district court found that the weight of credible evidence supported
Bright’s conviction, noting Bright’s “own testimony demonstrated that he willfully
failed to appear.” On appeal, Bright argues the district court improperly discredited 6
his account. He contends the State offered no evidence to contradict his testimony
about losing his cell phone and gas money. We disagree.
Key to Bright’s defense was an implicit assertion that he had no ability to
alert his attorney, the bond company, or anyone else about his empty tank
predicament. However, O’Connor testified that she heard from Bright on
December 31—two days after he and his wife allegedly lost their cell phones.1 And
during a recorded conversation, Bright and his wife discussed calls they made from
a TracPhone with a Florida number. Even assuming the couple had no phone of
their own, Bright apparently declined to ask anyone for help. That decision is
irreconcilable with his “absolute[]” intention to appear in court. Cf. Brown, 2002
WL 22184, at *1 (noting on review for sufficiency of the evidence that a defendant’s
failure to seek other transportation in lieu of his broken-down car supported a
verdict for willful failure to appear).
There are more problems with Bright’s story. For instance, the math doesn’t
add up. Bright testified he was marooned for ten days beginning on January 2.
But that leaves an additional week unaccounted for between the beginning of his
return trip on January 1 and his arrival in Cedar Rapids on January 19. In a
recorded call, Bright’s wife indicates the couple went “back and forth from Florida”
looking for work—which is contrary to Bright’s account of reaching northern
Georgia on fumes. Other dents in Bright’s credibility include his mixed-up
chronology of events following the discovery of the missing money and his failure
1 At trial, Bright sought to rebut O’Connor’s testimony by introducing a call log from
his cell phone carrier. That exhibit doesn’t do him any favors. It shows three outgoing texts from Bright’s phone between December 31 and January 3. Phone activity after January 3 was excluded from the log. 7
to explain why he and his wife waited ten days to sell the camping equipment that
paid their way home.
Bright urges us to focus on the fact that he had “no incentive to avoid
sentencing.” Undisputedly, he faced only two years’ probation under his plea deal
for the gun charge. The State suggests Bright may have been running from bigger
problems, citing federal investigators’ interest in his disappearance. But it is
unnecessary to speculate about Bright’s reasons. A worthy motive is not an
element under section 811.2(8). And even if the record raises questions about
why Bright would run, those questions do not resolve the several incongruencies
in his testimony.
Ultimately, our role in this case “is limited to a review of the exercise of
discretion by the trial court, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is
against the weight of the evidence.” State v. Heard, 934 N.W.2d 433, 444–45
(Iowa 2019) (citation omitted). We find the district court was well within its
discretion to discount Bright’s version of events and find the weight of credible
evidence supported the jury’s conclusion that Bright willfully failed to appear.
4. Conclusion
This is not the rare “case in which the evidence preponderates heavily
against the verdict rendered.” Ary, 877 N.W.2d at 706. If the evidence tips against
anything, it is against Bright’s account. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Bright’s motion for a new trial.