State of Iowa v. Earl Leonard Nelson Jr., 16-1087

On Nov. 29, 2015, a Best Buy storage trailer in Ankeny was burglarized; the State charged Earl Nelson Jr. with third-degree burglary (as an habitual offender) and possession of burglar’s tools.
Surveillance from a nearby Kum & Go showed Nelson and co-defendant Brian Nall arriving together in a white van around 1:45 a.m.; they purchased drinks and sandwiches.
Officers later found Nall inside the Best Buy storage unit, the white van nearby with driver’s door open, two bolt cutters, and bags/boxes bearing Best Buy’s address in the van.
A checkered coat, mask, gloves, part of a padlock, cigarettes, and a cell phone were found near the scene; the coat matched one worn by Nelson on the Kum & Go video.
Nelson was later located at Walmart buying clothing; he claimed he left his coat in someone else’s car. The cell phone found in the coat was being called by a contact labeled “Robin.”
Nelson was convicted by a jury on both counts; he appealed challenging sufficiency of the evidence and contending the sentencing court failed to state adequate reasons for the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for aiding-and-abetting burglary (3rd degree)	Evidence (surveillance, matching coat, proximity, items in van) supports inference Nelson approved/participated with Nall	No evidence Nelson approved or agreed to commit burglary with Nall; mere presence insufficient	Affirmed — substantial circumstantial evidence supported inference Nelson aided and abetted the burglary
Sufficiency of evidence for aiding-and-abetting possession of burglar’s tools	Bolt cutters in van with stolen Best Buy property; logical inference they were used to remove padlock and Nelson aided possession	No proof the padlock piece found was from the trailer; no proof Nelson knew of bolt cutters or intended they be used	Affirmed — record allowed jury to infer Nelson aided and abetted possession of burglar’s tools
Adequacy of sentencing statement	Court recited consideration of statutory sentencing options and factors (age, prior record, employment, offense nature, rehabilitation)	Court failed to state specific individualized reasons justifying the particular sentence	Affirmed — reasons were adequate and sentence within statutory limits; no abuse of discretion

State v. Howse, 875 N.W.2d 684 (Iowa 2016) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Showens, 845 N.W.2d 436 (Iowa 2014) (viewing evidence in light most favorable to State)
State v. Leckington, 713 N.W.2d 208 (Iowa 2006) (jury verdict binding absent lack of substantial evidence)
State v. Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402 (Iowa 2015) (review of sentencing reasonableness for abuse of discretion)
State v. O’Connell, 275 N.W.2d 197 (Iowa 1979) (circumstantial and direct evidence equally probative)
State v. Ambrose, 861 N.W.2d 550 (Iowa 2015) (permissible role of inferences in jury factfinding)
State v. Dvorsky, 322 N.W.2d 62 (Iowa 1982) (minimal essential factors for sentencing)
State v. Hildebrand, 280 N.W.2d 393 (Iowa 1979) (same — factors for sentencing)
State v. Neary, 470 N.W.2d 27 (Iowa 1991) (sentences within statutory limits reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (sufficiency of trial court’s stated reasons to assess abuse of discretion)