G > Hey Archie, rub up REALLY close to Maureen McAllister!
Moe > =A0He greg run and hide like the coward you are.
You're just engaging in wishful thinking!
Have you told Nymbecile why you're so PO'd at me?
Do you often hold the delusion that mocking you is being angry with you? Is it a result of the conspiracy you firmly believe is out to get you?
A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson (Greg states they are as believable as the comment that water is wet):
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON (DOB 05/22/1959) CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996 Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996 Comments: CT 2 SPEED Disposition Status GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!" Greg "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, by attacking my first wife (deceased).
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child abuser: "Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on the Child Abuse registry, for example." -- Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child abuser
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would address the most pressing problems of our day. ... " April 2000, Gregory Hanson
Path: news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Greegor Newsgroups: misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon, videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?" She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed triumphantly.
--a true story
As of Sunday, Feb. 27, 2011:
SMALL CLAIMS ORIGINAL NOTICE Comments: OPA $2805.04 COPIES TO PA VERIFICATION OF ACCOUNT
JUDGEMENT DEFAULT Comments: JUDGMENT AGAINST GREGORY HANSON FOR $2805.04 + INTEREST AT 7.271% FROM 8/6/98 & $45.00 COSTS.
Comments: NOTE OF GARN/NOTE TO DEFT SERV 9/24/98 BY WCSD TO SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT (ED POLKERS) FOR GREG HANSON FEES $35.60
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson has a Garnishment order against him. There is nothing to even suggest any of the money legally owed has been paid. The SoL on the order has likely expired, but Greg still can't risk getting a job due to it.
G > Have you told Nymbecile why you're so PO'd at me?
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 31 / 04-0202 Filed May 6, 2005
STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, vs. KENT BRADLEY WILLS, Appellant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.
Defendant appeals claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Tricia Johnston, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and John Judisch, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
WIGGINS, Justice.
Kent Wills appeals his conviction for second-degree burglary contending that an attached garage is a separate occupied structure from that of the living quarters of the residence. In this appeal, we must determine whether trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to move for judgment of acquittal on the basis there was insufficient evidence to convict Wills of second-degree burglary when he entered an attached garage of a residence when no persons were present in the garage, but when persons were present in the living quarters; and (2) failing to object to a jury instruction based on this same argument. Because we find there was no legal basis for the motion for judgment of acquittal or the objection to the jury instruction, Wills' trial counsel was not ineffective. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Around 1 a.m., an Ankeny resident called the local police to report that a car alarm sounded in the resident's neighborhood. The city dispatched a police officer to the location. Observing nothing unusual, the officer left the area, only to be stopped a couple of blocks later by a person who informed the officer he had witnessed someone running from the area of the car alarm. As the officer started driving back to the area of the car alarm, he noticed a person walking on the sidewalk. The officer asked the person, a minor, if he had noticed anybody running from the area. The minor answered that he had not. While the officer and another officer were speaking to the minor, another resident of the neighborhood arrived in her car and informed the officers that she had observed two people, one of whom was heavy set with a blinking light on his back pocket, walking in the area of her neighbor's residence. She observed the heavier-set individual, later identified as Wills, enter her neighbor's attached garage through an unlocked service door. She further observed a smaller individual standing by a van parked in the neighbor's driveway.
The officers eventually let the minor leave even though they found a large amount of coins, a flashlight, and an electronic pocket organizer in his pockets. After releasing the minor, the police officers drove to the residence where the neighbor observed the two suspicious people and woke the owner. The owner, his wife, and two daughters were in the residence sleeping at the time. After a search of his vehicles, the owner discovered change and an electronic pocket organizer were missing from the vehicles. The owner's daughter reported a diamond ring and some change were missing from her vehicle. The officers then contacted the minor's parents, who informed the officers the minor was with Wills. After the officers questioned the minor again, he admitted his involvement in the theft and implicated Wills in the burglary. Although Wills denied involvement in the burglary, the officers arrested him.
The State filed a trial information charging Wills with second-degree burglary. The State later amended the information to include two additional charges of burglary in the third degree and using a juvenile to commit an indictable offense.
The jury returned a verdict finding Wills guilty of the crimes of burglary in the second degree, burglary in the third degree, and using a juvenile to commit an indictable offense. Wills appeals his conviction for second-degree burglary claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.
II. Scope of Review.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are derived from the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-86, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2063-64, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 691-93 (1984). Our review for a claim involving violations of the Constitution is de novo. State v. Fintel, 689 N.W.2d 95, 100 (Iowa 2004). We normally preserve ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims for postconviction relief actions. State v. Carter, 602 N.W. 2d 818, 820 (Iowa 1999). However, we will address such claims on direct appeal when the record is sufficient to permit a ruling. State v. Artzer,
609 N.W.2d 526, 531 (Iowa 2000). The appellate record in the present case is sufficient to allow us to address Wills' ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims on direct appeal.In order for a defendant to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must prove: (1) counsel failed to perform an essential duty and (2) prejudice resulted. Id. Prejudice results when "there is a reasonable probability that, but for the counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." State v. Hopkins, 576 N.W.2d 374, 378 (Iowa 1998) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068,
80 L. Ed. 2d at 698). Wills' arguments also raise issues of statutory interpretation, which we review for correction of errors at law. State v. Wolford Corp., 689 N.W.2d 471, 473 (Iowa 2004).III. Analysis.
To find Wills guilty of burglary in the second degree, the State had to prove Wills perpetrated a burglary "in or upon an occupied structure in which one or more persons are present . . . ." Iowa Code =A7 713.5(2) (2003) (emphasis added).
In this appeal, Wills first contends his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a judgment of acquittal on the basis there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that at the time Wills entered the garage, there were persons present in or upon the occupied structure. Wills concedes the garage was an occupied structure, but argues the living quarters and the attached garage are separate and independent occupied structures; therefore, the jury could not have found there were people present in the attached garage at the time of the burglary.
The Code defines an "occupied structure" as:
[A]ny building, structure, appurtenances to buildings and structures, land, water or air vehicle, or similar place adapted for overnight accommodation of persons, or occupied by persons for the purpose of carrying on business or other activity therein, or for the storage or safekeeping of anything of value. Such a structure is an "occupied structure" whether or not a person is actually present.Id. =A7 702.12.
Wills relies on State v. Smothers, 590 N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 1999), to argue the garage and the living quarters are separate and independent occupied structures. In Smothers, two separate and distinct businesses connected by interior fire doors were operated in the same structure.
590 N.W.2d at 723. We held the defendant committed two burglaries by entering each business because "[t]he facility's construction history and physical make-up demonstrate that the portions are independent working units which constitute '[a] combination of materials to form a construction for occupancy [or] use.'" Id. Smothers is not at odds with the present case because the living quarters and the garage are not separate or independent units of the residence.Our review of the record reveals the garage in question was a three-car attached garage separated from the living quarters by a door. The same roof covered the garage as the rest of the residence. The living quarters surrounded the garage on two sides. It was structurally no different from any other room in the residence.
The garage was a functional part of the residence. On the night of the incident, the door was unlocked. The owner of the residence used two stalls in the garage to park the family vehicles. The owner used the third stall for his motorcycle. As such, the garage and the living quarters are a single "structure" or "building" functioning as an integral part of the family residence. Thus, the residence including the garage is a single "occupied structure" under section 702.12. See, e.g., People v. Ingram, 48 Cal. Rptr.
2d 256 (Ct. App.1995) (holding defendant's entry into an attached garage constituted first-degree burglary because the garage was attached to the house; therefore, burglary of the garage was burglary of an inhabited dwelling house); People v. Cunningham, 637 N.E.2d 1247, 1252 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994) (holding "ordinarily an attached garage is a 'dwelling' because it is part of the structure in which the owner or occupant lives"); State v. Lara, 587 P.2d 52, 53 (N.M. Ct. App. 1978) (holding "burglary of the [attached] garage was burglary of the dwelling house because the garage was a part of the structure used as living quarters"); People v. Green, 141 A.D.2d 760, 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988) (holding "[s]ince the garage in the present case was structurally part of a building which was used for overnight lodging of various persons, it must be considered as part of a dwelling"); White v. State, 630 S.W. 2d 340, 342 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982) (holding an attached garage under the same roof as the home would be considered a habitation within the purview of the penal code because the garage is a structure appurtenant to and connected to the house); State v. Murbach, 843 P. 2d 551, 553 (Wash. Ct. App 1993) (holding the definition of a dwelling under Washington's burglary statute included an attached garage).Had Wills' trial counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal on the basis there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that at the time Wills entered the garage there were no persons present in or upon the occupied structure, it would have been overruled by the court because the owner and his family were present in the residence at the time of the burglary.
Wills also claims his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the jury instruction used by the district court on the same ground; that the living quarters were a separate and independent occupied structure from the attached garage. The instruction as given stated:
The State must prove all of the following elements of Burglary in the Second Degree as to Count I:
If the State has proved all of the elements, the defendant is guilty of Burglary in the Second Degree. If the State has failed to prove any of the elements, the defendant is not guilty of Burglary in the Second Degree and you will then consider the charge of Attempted Burglary in the Second Degree explained in Instruction No. 21.
(Emphasis added.)
Wills' claim is without merit. As we have discussed, the residence is the one and only "occupied structure" under the facts of this case. Had Wills' trial counsel made this objection to the instruction, it would have been overruled.
Therefore, Wills' trial counsel is not ineffective for failing to move for a judgment of acquittal or objecting to the instruction because there was no legal basis for the motion or objection. See State v. Hochmuth, 585 N.W.2d 234,
238 (Iowa 1998) (holding trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise an issue that has no merit).IV. Disposition.
We affirm the judgment of the district court because Wills' trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise meritless issues.
AFFIRMED.
Kent's stock deceptions/logical fallacies (7/28/2010)
F. Ad Hominem calling opponents 1. Drunks or drunk drivers 2. Druggies or on drugs 3. Mentally Ill often as result of drug use G. Res Judicata 1. Already conceded to Kent's argument 2. Question already asked and answered. H. Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence 1a. Missing Middle, False Dilemma, False Dichotomy, bifurcation 1b. Fallacy of Complex Question - loaded question with presupposition 2. Withholding proof saying it's already on the table 3. ""Check is in the mail"" as proof of something. 4. Proof held hostage awaiting opponents proof on something else 5. Claim that a lack of proof disproves something. 6. Claim that a lack of proof proves something. 7. Claim that asking for a LINK PROVES insult XYZ J. strawman 1. False pretense that opponent made some idiotic argument 2. Lie claimed to be based on opponents standards K. OUTRIGHT LIE ( doesn't fit other designations ) L. IDENTITY 1. The court records were faked as a prank. ( On 3 official sites? ) 2. Anonymity - That's not my name at all! 3. Doppelganger defense - " That was some OTHER Kent B Wills." 4. Never gone to prison ( convict didn't go either! mental case? )
It's as if Kent is an automation that is WAY too simple.
Since a question is not an argument, simply asking a loaded question is not a fallacious argument. Rather, loaded questions are typically used to trick someone into implying something they did not intend. For instance, salespeople learn to ask such loaded questions as: "Will that be cash or charge?" This question gives only two alternatives, thus presuming that the potential buyer has already decided to make a purchase, which is similar to the Black-or-White Fallacy. If the potential buyer answers the question directly, he may suddenly find himself an actual buyer.
Maureen McAllister posted a tract composed by Kent Bradley Wills.
More attempt to equivocate Kent's way out of being thoroughly and completely ID'd as a garage burglar. Despite 2 FELONIES Kent tried to pass himself off as a school teacher online. Ask yourself why!
Wrong Greg Hanson and Kent knows it is. I have never been garnished.
On 8/12/2003 Kent got caught using SEAN MICHAEL BILYEU DOB 12/18/1985 as an accomplice to a felony garage burglary
05771 FECR176876. It was Kent's second felony for thieving, and he got a misdemenor conviction for using a minor as an accomplice.Type in the right blanks: Kent Wills Jan 8 1969 and hit the search button.
Click on the "Start a Case Search Here" button (underlined) Click on "Case Search" button (underlined) (You get the search blanks) Type in the right blanks Wills, Kent, B and hit the Search button.
Compressed form with DATES for display on usenet:
OffenseDate County Case Number Jan 7 2008 02401 ESPR015146 INA J WILLS ESTATE WILLS, KENT Jan 24 2000 05771 FECR145250 STATE v WILLS [DOB] 01/08/1969 Aug 12 2003 05771 FECR176876 STATE v WILLS [DOB] 01/08/1969 Mar 30 1999 05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS v WILLS Dec 7 2000 05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL v WILLS dism 90 days Aug 15 2003 05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE v WILLS rents dism Aug 15 2003 05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III v WILLS dism "FED"? April 9, 2002 05771 STAN201670 STATE v WILLS [DOB] 01/08/1969 exp DL Jan 9 2003 05771 STAN210929 STATE v WILLS [DOB] 01/08/1969 veh reg Aug 23 2003 05771 SWCR177169 STATE v WILLS [DOB] 01/08/1969 Srch Warr
Scroll to bottom right OWNER NAME input and type in Wills Family Trust and hit enter. Or put in a name of Wills, or put a parcel ID like
02-00444-000 or 15-09938-000 in the blank marked parcel ID and then hit enter.15-09938-000 WILLS FAMILY TRUST-FRED A JR & JANET R
8250 WILLS CT 57390 14-19-28Kent Bradley Wills, 1110 South F Street, Rogers, Arkansas 72756-5520 County parcel # 02-00444-000 (Owned by Kent's folks Fred and Janet.)
Look for the red chair!
G > D. apt building at 202 NW College Ave Ankeny IA
Sat, Sep 19 2009 4:52 pm KBW > One of the buildings I've owned in my life. KBW > Very old news.
G > D. apt building at 202 NW College Ave Ankeny IA
KBW > It's gone through at least three owners since I sold it. Deal with it.
CRITELLI PROPERTIES, LC RAMSEY, DENNIS 2004-10-29 165,000 D/Deed
10809/630 SWEENEY REVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST CRITELLI PROPERTIES 1998-11-30 179,500 D/Deed 8079/99 WILLS, FRED A. & JANET R. THE SWEENEY REVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST 1994-04-26 135,000 D/Deed 7010/188 SHELDAHL, ERIC A. WILLS, FRED 1990-01-02 130,500 D/Deed 6189/972
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 31 / 04-0202 Filed May 6, 2005
STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, vs. KENT BRADLEY WILLS, Appellant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.
Defendant appeals claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Tricia Johnston, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and John Judisch, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
WIGGINS, Justice.
Kent Wills appeals his conviction for second-degree burglary contending that an attached garage is a separate occupied structure from that of the living quarters of the residence. In this appeal, we must determine whether trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to move for judgment of acquittal on the basis there was insufficient evidence to convict Wills of second-degree burglary when he entered an attached garage of a residence when no persons were present in the garage, but when persons were present in the living quarters; and (2) failing to object to a jury instruction based on this same argument. Because we find there was no legal basis for the motion for judgment of acquittal or the objection to the jury instruction, Wills' trial counsel was not ineffective. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Around 1 a.m., an Ankeny resident called the local police to report that a car alarm sounded in the resident's neighborhood. The city dispatched a police officer to the location. Observing nothing unusual, the officer left the area, only to be stopped a couple of blocks later by a person who informed the officer he had witnessed someone running from the area of the car alarm. As the officer started driving back to the area of the car alarm, he noticed a person walking on the sidewalk. The officer asked the person, a minor, if he had noticed anybody running from the area. The minor answered that he had not. While the officer and another officer were speaking to the minor, another resident of the neighborhood arrived in her car and informed the officers that she had observed two people, one of whom was heavy set with a blinking light on his back pocket, walking in the area of her neighbor's residence. She observed the heavier-set individual, later identified as Wills, enter her neighbor's attached garage through an unlocked service door. She further observed a smaller individual standing by a van parked in the neighbor's driveway.
The officers eventually let the minor leave even though they found a large amount of coins, a flashlight, and an electronic pocket organizer in his pockets. After releasing the minor, the police officers drove to the residence where the neighbor observed the two suspicious people and woke the owner. The owner, his wife, and two daughters were in the residence sleeping at the time. After a search of his vehicles, the owner discovered change and an electronic pocket organizer were missing from the vehicles. The owner's daughter reported a diamond ring and some change were missing from her vehicle. The officers then contacted the minor's parents, who informed the officers the minor was with Wills. After the officers questioned the minor again, he admitted his involvement in the theft and implicated Wills in the burglary. Although Wills denied involvement in the burglary, the officers arrested him.
The State filed a trial information charging Wills with second-degree burglary. The State later amended the information to include two additional charges of burglary in the third degree and using a juvenile to commit an indictable offense.
The jury returned a verdict finding Wills guilty of the crimes of burglary in the second degree, burglary in the third degree, and using a juvenile to commit an indictable offense. Wills appeals his conviction for second-degree burglary claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.
II. Scope of Review.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are derived from the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-86, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2063-64, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 691-93 (1984). Our review for a claim involving violations of the Constitution is de novo. State v. Fintel, 689 N.W.2d 95, 100 (Iowa 2004). We normally preserve ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims for postconviction relief actions. State v. Carter, 602 N.W. 2d 818, 820 (Iowa 1999). However, we will address such claims on direct appeal when the record is sufficient to permit a ruling. State v. Artzer,
609 N.W.2d 526, 531 (Iowa 2000). The appellate record in the present case is sufficient to allow us to address Wills' ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims on direct appeal.In order for a defendant to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must prove: (1) counsel failed to perform an essential duty and (2) prejudice resulted. Id. Prejudice results when "there is a reasonable probability that, but for the counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." State v. Hopkins, 576 N.W.2d 374, 378 (Iowa 1998) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068,
80 L. Ed. 2d at 698). Wills' arguments also raise issues of statutory interpretation, which we review for correction of errors at law. State v. Wolford Corp., 689 N.W.2d 471, 473 (Iowa 2004).III. Analysis.
To find Wills guilty of burglary in the second degree, the State had to prove Wills perpetrated a burglary "in or upon an occupied structure in which one or more persons are present . . . ." Iowa Code =A7 713.5(2) (2003) (emphasis added).
In this appeal, Wills first contends his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a judgment of acquittal on the basis there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that at the time Wills entered the garage, there were persons present in or upon the occupied structure. Wills concedes the garage was an occupied structure, but argues the living quarters and the attached garage are separate and independent occupied structures; therefore, the jury could not have found there were people present in the attached garage at the time of the burglary.
The Code defines an "occupied structure" as:
[A]ny building, structure, appurtenances to buildings and structures, land, water or air vehicle, or similar place adapted for overnight accommodation of persons, or occupied by persons for the purpose of carrying on business or other activity therein, or for the storage or safekeeping of anything of value. Such a structure is an "occupied structure" whether or not a person is actually present.Id. =A7 702.12.
Wills relies on State v. Smothers, 590 N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 1999), to argue the garage and the living quarters are separate and independent occupied structures. In Smothers, two separate and distinct businesses connected by interior fire doors were operated in the same structure.
590 N.W.2d at 723. We held the defendant committed two burglaries by entering each business because "[t]he facility's construction history and physical make-up demonstrate that the portions are independent working units which constitute '[a] combination of materials to form a construction for occupancy [or] use.'" Id. Smothers is not at odds with the present case because the living quarters and the garage are not separate or independent units of the residence.Our review of the record reveals the garage in question was a three-car attached garage separated from the living quarters by a door. The same roof covered the garage as the rest of the residence. The living quarters surrounded the garage on two sides. It was structurally no different from any other room in the residence.
The garage was a functional part of the residence. On the night of the incident, the door was unlocked. The owner of the residence used two stalls in the garage to park the family vehicles. The owner used the third stall for his motorcycle. As such, the garage and the living quarters are a single "structure" or "building" functioning as an integral part of the family residence. Thus, the residence including the garage is a single "occupied structure" under section 702.12. See, e.g., People v. Ingram, 48 Cal. Rptr.
2d 256 (Ct. App.1995) (holding defendant's entry into an attached garage constituted first-degree burglary because the garage was attached to the house; therefore, burglary of the garage was burglary of an inhabited dwelling house); People v. Cunningham, 637 N.E.2d 1247, 1252 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994) (holding "ordinarily an attached garage is a 'dwelling' because it is part of the structure in which the owner or occupant lives"); State v. Lara, 587 P.2d 52, 53 (N.M. Ct. App. 1978) (holding "burglary of the [attached] garage was burglary of the dwelling house because the garage was a part of the structure used as living quarters"); People v. Green, 141 A.D.2d 760, 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988) (holding "[s]ince the garage in the present case was structurally part of a building which was used for overnight lodging of various persons, it must be considered as part of a dwelling"); White v. State, 630 S.W. 2d 340, 342 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982) (holding an attached garage under the same roof as the home would be considered a habitation within the purview of the penal code because the garage is a structure appurtenant to and connected to the house); State v. Murbach, 843 P. 2d 551, 553 (Wash. Ct. App 1993) (holding the definition of a dwelling under Washington's burglary statute included an attached garage).Had Wills' trial counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal on the basis there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that at the time Wills entered the garage there were no persons present in or upon the occupied structure, it would have been overruled by the court because the owner and his family were present in the residence at the time of the burglary.
Wills also claims his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the jury instruction used by the district court on the same ground; that the living quarters were a separate and independent occupied structure from the attached garage. The instruction as given stated:
The State must prove all of the following elements of Burglary in the Second Degree as to Count I:
If the State has proved all of the elements, the defendant is guilty of Burglary in the Second Degree. If the State has failed to prove any of the elements, the defendant is not guilty of Burglary in the Second Degree and you will then consider the charge of Attempted Burglary in the Second Degree explained in Instruction No. 21.
(Emphasis added.)
Wills' claim is without merit. As we have discussed, the residence is the one and only "occupied structure" under the facts of this case. Had Wills' trial counsel made this objection to the instruction, it would have been overruled.
Therefore, Wills' trial counsel is not ineffective for failing to move for a judgment of acquittal or objecting to the instruction because there was no legal basis for the motion or objection. See State v. Hochmuth, 585 N.W.2d 234,
238 (Iowa 1998) (holding trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise an issue that has no merit).IV. Disposition.
We affirm the judgment of the district court because Wills' trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise meritless issues.
AFFIRMED.
Kent's stock deceptions/logical fallacies (7/28/2010)
F. Ad Hominem calling opponents 1. Drunks or drunk drivers 2. Druggies or on drugs 3. Mentally Ill often as result of drug use G. Res Judicata 1. Already conceded to Kent's argument 2. Question already asked and answered. H. Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence 1a. Missing Middle, False Dilemma, False Dichotomy, bifurcation 1b. Fallacy of Complex Question - loaded question with presupposition 2. Withholding proof saying it's already on the table 3. ""Check is in the mail"" as proof of something. 4. Proof held hostage awaiting opponents proof on something else 5. Claim that a lack of proof disproves something. 6. Claim that a lack of proof proves something. 7. Claim that asking for a LINK PROVES insult XYZ J. strawman 1. False pretense that opponent made some idiotic argument 2. Lie claimed to be based on opponents standards K. OUTRIGHT LIE ( doesn't fit other designations ) L. IDENTITY 1. The court records were faked as a prank. ( On 3 official sites? ) 2. Anonymity - That's not my name at all! 3. Doppelganger defense - " That was some OTHER Kent B Wills." 4. Never gone to prison ( convict didn't go either! mental case? )
It's as if Kent is an automation that is WAY too simple.
Since a question is not an argument, simply asking a loaded question is not a fallacious argument. Rather, loaded questions are typically used to trick someone into implying something they did not intend. For instance, salespeople learn to ask such loaded questions as: "Will that be cash or charge?" This question gives only two alternatives, thus presuming that the potential buyer has already decided to make a purchase, which is similar to the Black-or-White Fallacy. If the potential buyer answers the question directly, he may suddenly find himself an actual buyer.
Kent's Criminal Appeal for Garage Burglary
IN PRINTED LAW BOOKS West's North Western Reporter Second Series A Unit of the National Reporter System Volume 696 N.W.2d 20,22 (Iowa 2005)
cited BY 06-1812 State v. CARROLL (Iowa 2007) cited BY 08-0460 State v. Berry (Iowa 2009)
What does the case of someone we don't know have to do with your delusion that Moe's mocking you equates to being POed at you? Please answer the question rather than run and HIDE or attempt to distract. [Chirping crickets on stand-by]
A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson (Greg states they are as believable as the comment that water is wet):
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON (DOB 05/22/1959) CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996 Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996 Comments: CT 2 SPEED Disposition Status GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!" Greg "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, by attacking my first wife (deceased).
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child abuser: "Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on the Child Abuse registry, for example." -- Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child abuser
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would address the most pressing problems of our day. ... " April 2000, Gregory Hanson
Path: news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Greegor Newsgroups: misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon, videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?" She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed triumphantly.
--a true story
As of Sunday, Feb. 27, 2011:
SMALL CLAIMS ORIGINAL NOTICE Comments: OPA $2805.04 COPIES TO PA VERIFICATION OF ACCOUNT
JUDGEMENT DEFAULT Comments: JUDGMENT AGAINST GREGORY HANSON FOR $2805.04 + INTEREST AT 7.271% FROM 8/6/98 & $45.00 COSTS.
Comments: NOTE OF GARN/NOTE TO DEFT SERV 9/24/98 BY WCSD TO SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT (ED POLKERS) FOR GREG HANSON FEES $35.60
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson has a Garnishment order against him. There is nothing to even suggest any of the money legally owed has been paid. The SoL on the order has likely expired, but Greg still can't risk getting a job due to it.
OK, show us the math.
John
More like your usual tactic when faced with the truth about you. You've done that so many times before.
Your claims and distortions noted.
Moe
G > Hey Archie, rub up REALLY close to Maureen McAllister!
Moe > =A0He greg run and hide like the coward you are.
G > You're just engaging in wishful thinking!
Moe > More like your usual tactic when Moe > faced with the truth about you. Moe > You've done that so many times before.
Nice bluff, but what if I challenged you to post a link showing where I ran and hid.
If I did it so "many times before", that should be easy!
G > Have you told Nymbecile why you're so PO'd at me?
Moe > =A0Your claims and distortions noted.
It was a question.
Total bullshit.
See
There are --> no
n
for
Thank you, Mr. Lancaster.
In your " question" you made claims.
Quit lying.
Moe
I don't know why so many people keep wanting to replace cars that use internal combustion engines. They work fabulously well.
But hydrogen is great fuel. It's easy to store: just stick it to some carbon.
John
G > Hey Archie, rub up REALLY close to Maureen McAllister!
Moe > =A0He greg run and hide like the coward you are.
G > You're just engaging in wishful thinking!
Moe > More like your usual tactic when Moe > faced with the truth about you. Moe > You've done that so many times before.
G > Nice bluff, but what if I challenged you G > to post a link showing where I ran and hid.
G > If I did it so "many times before", that should be easy!
G > Have you told Nymbecile why you're so PO'd at me?
Moe > =A0Your claims and distortions noted.
G > It was a question.
Moe > In your " question" you made claims. Moe > Quit lying.
Are you saying your not PO'd at me?
What other "claims" did my question make?
Few people realize that there is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen.
Has to do with the mole fraction exceeding the density ratio.
-- Many thanks, Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073 Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don@tinaja.com Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Again, you act as if I give a fat flying f*ck about you or any of your toils, greegor, you stupid, worthless twit.
You are an idiot.
There are entire fleets of ambulances that run on propane and there were few induction system mods needs for a standard engine to be a propane engine.
It uses a propane/air mix and operates EXACTLY as a petrol engine does, only better. Hydrogen would be a further advancement.
Hydrogen has more energy output than Propane does.
You do not see the rocket scientists making rockets that run on liquid Propane.
YOU are the idiots.
Where did you get that idea, idiot?
They work even better with a Hydrogen / Air mix than with gas, and they pollute not at all. You lose, again.
Liquid Hydrogen "stores" just fine. Take a course, loser.
Hey dude, don't go away mad, just go away. Your ignorance is showing - again.
And there's more hydrogen in a liter of natural gas than there is in a liter of hydrogen. About 3 or 4 times as much.
John
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.