State of Iowa
v.
Joshua Kelly Uranga
Joshua Kelly Uranga seeks further review of the court of appeals opinion affirming his conviction for failure to comply with the sex offender registry requirements, first offense, in violation of Iowa Code sections 692A.103, 692A.108, and 692A.111. The court of appeals rejected his argument that newly discovered evidence regarding a letter from the sheriff, which afforded him a grace period of five business days to appear, was newly discovered evidence, and the district court should have granted his posttrial motion. The court of appeals determined that although the letter was material to his defense, it would probably not have changed the result because Uranga’s admissions at trial established the elements of the crime.
Resister
State of Iowa
Applicant
Joshua Kelly Uranga
Attorney for the Resister
Louis S. Sloven
Attorney for the Applicant
Agnes Warutere
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
Non-Oral
Sep 16, 2020 1:30 PM
Briefs
Supreme Court Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Date Amended:
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Stephen A. Owen, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ. Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J. Special concurrence by Doyle, J. (11 pages)
Joshua Uranga appeals his conviction for failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements, contending the district court abused its discretion in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal and for new trial “where exculpatory evidence was produced after trial.” OPINION HOLDS: We affirm Uranga’s judgment and sentence for failure to comply with the sex offender registry. SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: Although I agree with the majority that Uranga’s admissions at trial established the elements of the crime, and that providing the jury with the sheriff’s courtesy letter probably would not have changed the result, it seems patently unfair that Uranga’s compliance with a directive of the county’s highest law enforcement officer played no part in the prosecution and disposition of this case.