State of Iowa v. Tyler Q. Chandler, 16-1608

Tyler Q. Chandler traveled from Indiana to Waterloo, Iowa, with three men (Jenkins, Hodges, Mathews) and stayed at Mathews’ apartment; the group was seen possessing two firearms and left together shortly before the Burger King robbery.
On April 23, 2014, three masked, armed men entered a Burger King shortly before closing, assaulted employees, took cash drawers, and exited through the drive‑thru/emergency door; one employee was injured.
Surveillance and scene evidence: a to‑go bag used earlier by Jenkins was found propping the drive‑thru door; DNA testing on leftover food in the bag matched Jenkins.
Cell‑phone records showed texts from the phone registered to Chandler (used by Jenkins in the restaurant) relaying employee descriptions and advising when and which door to use; Chandler initially denied being in Iowa and lending his phone, later admitted he had been in Waterloo.
Chandler was tried with Jenkins and Mathews, convicted of first‑degree robbery, and sentenced to 25 years (17.5 years mandatory minimum) to run consecutively to an Indiana sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence of Chandler’s participation	Circumstantial evidence (association with co‑defendants, cell‑phone use in furtherance of robbery, presence in Waterloo, matching firearms, post‑robbery disappearance, false statements) suffices to prove participation or aiding/abetting	No direct forensic or video ID; no witness identified Chandler; conviction rests on suspicion/speculation	Affirmed — circumstantial evidence sufficient to support conviction as principal or aider/abettor
Consecutive sentencing to Indiana term	Consecutive sentence appropriate given violent nature, multiple firearms, injury to victim, Chandler’s prior Indiana conviction for conspiracy to commit armed robbery	Argued court abused discretion; urged concurrent sentence based on youth, child support needs, minimal record, troubled upbringing, work history, and lower risk to reoffend; claimed court did not explain how consecutive terms served sentencing objectives	Affirmed — trial court provided adequate reasons (nature/circumstances, violence, prior serious conviction); no abuse of discretion

Huser v. State, 894 N.W.2d 472 (Iowa 2017) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence and weight of circumstantial proof)
Hopkins v. State, 860 N.W.2d 550 (Iowa 2015) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard and presumption favoring sentencing court)
Barnes v. State, 791 N.W.2d 817 (Iowa 2010) (requirement that sentencing court state reasons on the record for consecutive sentences)