State of Iowa v. Todd Orrin Grant, 16-0937

On November 29, 2015, Andre Carl returned home to find his house ransacked and property missing; he later identified several bags and a piece of luggage found in a storage closet as his.
Detectives searching Robert Brooks’s residence found a Green Bay Packers stock certificate bearing Carl’s name; Brooks said he received it from his step‑nephew, Todd Grant.
Grant was located and detained; Grant’s girlfriend, Jennifer Lumley, consented to a search of her apartment and a rarely‑used hallway storage closet; officers found ~20 bags of miscellaneous items in the closet.
Lumley testified she had not used the closet in over a year, only stored an air conditioner and a Christmas tree there, and that Grant had access and had placed a padlock on the closet; the padlock key was recovered in Lumley’s apartment.
Carl testified to item descriptions and values (about $2,000 total) based on internet research and owner knowledge. Grant was charged with second‑degree theft (value > $1,000) and sentenced with a habitual offender enhancement.
The jury convicted Grant; on appeal he challenged sufficiency and weight of the evidence and aspects of sentencing; the appellate court affirmed the conviction but vacated parts of the sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: possession and knowledge of stolen property	State: evidence showed Grant possessed stolen items (padlock/access, items in Lumley’s closet, certificate to Brooks) and knew they were stolen	Grant: no sufficient proof he possessed or knew property was stolen; value not proven > $1,000	Affirmed — substantial evidence supported possession, knowledge, and value > $1,000
Weight of the evidence / new trial	State: jury verdict supported by credible evidence (owner ID, access, padlock, eyewitnesses)	Grant: verdict contrary to weight of evidence; trial court should grant new trial	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion denying new trial
Sentencing: imposition of fine and surcharge for habitual offender	State: habitual offender status supported enhancement but did not dispute statutory limits on fines	Grant: court lacked authority to impose/suspend a fine and associated 35% surcharge under habitual offender statutes; consecutive sentencing basis improper	Affirmed in part; vacated suspended fine and 35% surcharge and vacated consecutive sentence portion; remanded for resentencing
Sentencing authority for consecutive terms	State: cited section 908.10 to justify consecutive sentences	Grant: 908.10 applies to parolees, not probationers; sentence therefore improperly ordered consecutive	Court agreed with Grant; 908.10 inapplicable (Grant was on probation); remand for resentencing

State v. Rohm, 609 N.W.2d 504 (Iowa 2000) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Ary, 877 N.W.2d 686 (Iowa 2016) (standard for reviewing motions for new trial asserting verdict is contrary to weight of evidence)
State v. Liddell, 672 N.W.2d 805 (Iowa 2003) (standard for reviewing sentencing challenges)
State v. Savage, 288 N.W.2d 502 (Iowa 1980) (testimony about value is liberally received and jury weighs it)
State v. Boyken, 217 N.W.2d 218 (Iowa 1974) (owner is competent to testify to value)
State v. Sanford, 814 N.W.2d 611 (Iowa 2012) (jury free to accept or reject valuation testimony)
State v. Ellis, 578 N.W.2d 655 (Iowa 1998) (definition and review of weight‑of‑evidence claims)