State of Iowa v. Shawn Michael Hagedorn

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: January 23, 2025
• Docket: 23-1698
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-1698 Filed January 23, 2025

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

SHAWN MICHAEL HAGEDORN, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Jeffrey D. Bert, Judge.

A criminal defendant appeals his convictions for unauthorized use of a credit

card and theft in the second degree. AFFIRMED.

Karmen Anderson, Des Moines, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Katherine Wenman, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. 2

BULLER, Judge.

Shawn Hagedorn appeals his convictions for unauthorized use of a credit

card and second-degree theft. We affirm, finding his instructional challenge

unpreserved and his convictions supported by substantial evidence.

Background Facts and Proceedings. Pamela Glynn, a Scott County

retiree in her late sixties, hired Shawn Hagedorn to do odd jobs and projects

around her condominium. After about a month of work, Glynn grew unhappy with

Hagedorn’s lack of progress, so she left a note instructing him to keep regular

hours and reprimanding him for using her car without permission. Glynn also

thought Hagedorn was getting too comfortable in her home. And she eventually

fired him and called a friend to help make him leave.

Some weeks later, Glynn received a bank statement that had unusual

charges for places she didn’t go, cell-phone providers she didn’t use, online

gaming she didn’t participate in, cash-transfer applications she hadn’t heard of,

and some direct transfers listing Hagedorn’s name. She called her bank and

discovered approximately $4000 in unexpected expenses. And she reported the

fraud to the bank and police. Later, Glynn recalled an occasion she left her debit

card on the counter in Hagedorn’s presence and that she left him unsupervised at

times. She testified Hagedorn did not have permission to use her card for any of

the unexpected transactions.

Glynn also thought some of her personal property was missing from her

home after Hagedorn left. She went to a pawn shop across the river in Illinois and

discovered a family heirloom—a pocket watch with engraved initials—behind the

counter. The pawn shop had marked the pocket watch for sale at $129.99, though 3

Glynn valued it at $300. The broker identified Hagedorn as the person who

pawned the pocket watch, as confirmed by surveillance footage and a sales ticket

with Hagedorn’s name and personal information. Glynn testified Hagedorn did not

have permission to take or sell the pocket watch.

Police acquired a variety of digital, financial, and forensic records as they

investigated the fraudulent charges. Of particular note, records from the

cash-transfer application established that Hagedorn (who used his real name,

birthdate, address, and social security number) opened the account using Glynn’s

card number and transferred money to his own separate account. Following the

police investigation, the Scott County Attorney charged Hagedorn by trial

information with one count of unauthorized use of a credit card for more than $1500

and under $10,000, a class “D” felony in violation of Iowa Code

section 715A.6(2)(b) (2022), and theft in the second degree, a class “D” felony in

violation of Iowa Code section 714.2(2), both enhanced as a habitual offender

under sections 902.8 and 902.9.

Hagedorn testified at trial, claiming Glynn authorized the transactions and

that she offered to let him move in, then “got [him] drunk” and they had sex. He

claimed it was after that when “things went downhill” between them and a man

kicked him out of Glynn’s home “at gunpoint.” Hagedorn said Glynn gave him the

pocket watch one of the first days he worked at her house, and he pawned it

because he needed cash after she kicked him out. He said he had “no idea” what

the online-gaming charges were about. And he admitted to a past theft conviction.

The jury found Hagedorn guilty as charged. He appeals, challenging the

jury instructions and sufficiency of the evidence. 4

Jury Instructions. Hagedorn alleges errors in the jury instructions but

candidly admits “[n]either party objected” below. A “timely objection to jury

instructions in criminal prosecutions is necessary in order to preserve any error.”

State v. Davis, 951 N.W.2d 8, 16 (Iowa 2020) (citation omitted). He encourages

us to “bypass” this error-preservation problem and “adopt a plain[-]error standard.”

We must decline. See, e.g., State v. Treptow, 960 N.W.2d 98, 109 (Iowa 2021)

(“We have repeatedly rejected plain error review and will not adopt it now.”).

Having no instructional error to review, we move to the next issue.

Sufficiency of the Evidence. We review sufficiency challenges for

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

determining whether the jury’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).

Hagedorn’s argument boils down to a claim the jury should have believed

him instead of Glynn. But “[a] criminal defendant is not entitled to acquittal merely

because he wishes the jury had believed him instead of the victim.” State v.

Hernandez, No. 23-0630, 2025 WL 52424, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2025) (en

banc). Glynn testified to all the essential elements, and this alone was sufficient

to support a conviction. See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.21(3) (“Corroboration of the

testimony of victims shall not be required.”). Here, Glynn’s testimony was

bolstered by the pawn broker, the surveillance footage, and various digital,

financial, and forensic records. Sufficient evidence supported Hagedorn’s guilt.

AFFIRMED.