DES MOINES – A convicted Mason City meth dealer had his appeal heard in court and won a small victory that might result in a new trial.
Jason Shimar Keys appealed his 2015 conviction of delivery of methamphetamine, following a jury trial. He argued the court erred in multiple rulings and trial counsel was ineffective. He also argues the court erred in ruling that the State’s substitute exhibits 1 and 8 were accurate copies of the originals.
According to court documents, on December 4, 2014, a confidential informant, Jonathan Hjelle, notified Frank Hodak, Sheriff’s Deputy and North Central Iowa Drug Task Force investigator, that he could purchase one gram of methamphetamine from Jason Keys later that day. Hodak then assembled other members of the task force to conduct a controlled buy.
In preparation for the buy, Hodak met Hjelle at a predetermined location, searched him, fitted him with a digital recorder and live audio wire, and provided him with one hundred and thirty dollars in pre-recorded buy money. Hjelle then contacted Keys through text messages to confirm the transaction. Hjelle testified that he walked to the house where Keys was located and met Keys in the back bedroom. He stated that he sat down, handed Keys the money, and after Keys commented on an older, crisp fifty-dollar bill, Keys handed the methamphetamine to him. The members of the task force, including Hodak, surveilled the activities visually through a window and through the live audio wire. During the transaction, the audio recording revealed that Keys referenced an “old school” fifty-dollar bill, which was part of the buy money.
After the purchase, Keys and Hjelle went outside to meet two individuals in a truck. The individuals were interested in trading a stolen bike for methamphetamine, but no transaction took place. Hodak testified that he recognized Keys’s distinctive voice on the live audio wire from prior encounters and he could hear Keys explain to the individuals in the truck that he was wearing a facemask because he had active warrants. Hodak also testified that he visually recognized Keys when he exited the building even though Keys was wearing a half ski mask that partially covered the bottom portion of his face.
Following the purchase, Hjelle returned a small bag of a white, crystal substance to Hodak. Hodak field-tested the substance, which tested positive for methamphetamine. Laboratory testing later confirmed the substance was .81 grams of methamphetamine. An arrest warrant was issued for Keys, and in May 2015, he was arrested for delivery of methamphetamine. During a recorded post-arrest interview, Hodak read Keys his Miranda rights, explained the charge was related to a controlled buy on December 4, 2014, and indicated that Keys had “options.” Hodak advised Keys that he was interested “in moving up the chain” and buying from “other people.” Hodak stated, “We know that you middled the deal,” and Keys responded affirmatively. Hodak then stated, “We want to move up the ladder” and would talk to the county attorney to “make the charges go away” if Keys assisted with controlled buys.
On June 2, 2015, the State charged Keys with one count of delivery of methamphetamine, and as an habitual felony offender. Keys filed a motion to suppress evidence arguing, in part, the post-arrest interview should be excluded from trial under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.408, as the interview included the officer discussing working with prosecutors to reduce the charges. On August 7, 2015, a hearing was held on the issue. In its order, the district court determined Hodak’s statement “You make some controlled buys for us and make these charges go away” was a promise of leniency. The court excluded portions of the post-arrest audio recording following Hodak’s statement but allowed the preceding conversation between Hodak and Keys to be played for the jury as State’s exhibit 8.
After a careful review of the record, the Iowa Appeals Court agreed with the district court and trial counsel Hodak did not respond to Keys’s denial he did not sell drugs by saying, “That’s why we are willing to work with you.” Assuming the statement was made by Hodak and omitted from the substituted exhibit 8, we are not convinced the statement qualifies as a promise of leniency. The trial court did not err in admitting the early portions of the audio recording of the post-arrest interview. The promise of leniency was triggered only when Hodak offered a benefit to Keys. Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in overruling Keys’s objections to Manson’s testimony about his experience with fingerprints on cellophane bags, Hodak’s controlled-buy experience, or Hodak’s testimony interpreting exhibit 7. Testimony from the confidential informant, officers involved in the controlled buy, and evidence of the audio recordings were sufficient to support Keys’s conviction. However, the court applied the wrong standard when ruling on Keys’s motion for new trial. Keys’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are preserved for postconviction relief, as the record is inadequate to resolve the issues on direct appeal and we are unable to evaluate the cumulative prejudicial effect on Keys. Finally, the court affirmed the district court’s ruling to substitute exhibits 1, 7 and 8.
