|
|
|
WHY even argue specifics if the ID is wrong, Betty?
This implies that you know the ID is right.
Arguing wrongful prosecution would work better
if you acknowledged that he is the named party
in the first place.
In ascps I have actually argued wrongful prosecution
on one of my domestics, but I didn't try to
deny that I was the named party at the same time.
This is the problem with Kent and his "rotating denials".
He can't even admit that he is the one convicted,
even though he gave away his identity.
In fact, his various rediculous stories, like his old
post that described his own case, from a third
person perspective, casting himself as an observer...
Such FAIRY TALES reveal him to be a bold liar.
The "rotating denials", many of which partially
contradict others, show him to be a liar.
If Kent has been in any way LIBELED by misidentification,
then he would stand NO CHANCE in court since
he perpetrated that misidentification himself!
What kind of MORON would want to misidentify themself as a Burglary
FELON?
And then whine about NOT being that person?
If it's WRONG, Kent, then file a LIBEL suit! You have my address.
Kent has attempted to justify telling really stupid LIES
by pretending they protect the security of his family.
Wouldn't such a LIBEL suit enhance the security of Kent's family?
Betty, The particulars about my own family that you refer to
are from caseworkers, JUVENILE COURT,
and trial in absentia (forced out), not any
FULLY CONSTITUTIONAL COURT like Kent got.
It's like your comparing a fertive rumour to
Kent's full JURY trial and state SUPREME COURT decision.
He didn't argue in court that the kid framed him, Betty.
He tried the lame appeal argument he did not get
adequate legal representation because the attorney
didn't try the rediculous claim that an attached garage
is not part of a house, for the purposes of burglary.
What kind of idiot would DARE argue that if they had
been framed by the kid, Betty?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/769622d66e8e83b4
From: "dragonsgirl" <dragonsg...@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:39:56 GMT Local: Tues, Mar 11 2008 5:39 pm
Subject: Re: KENT WILLS allegations again
And yet from the summary that you posted yourself the juvenile was
found by
the police alone, and was the only person in possession of stolen
items...
Oh yeah...and wel all keep diamond rings in our cars too. Wonder if
their
insurance company believed that one.
[snip]
CAN YOU PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT THE PERSON WHO POSTS
HERE AS
KENT WILLS IS KENT BRADLEY WILLS?
I made those words really big so you can see them really well.
Do have a photo of him, mug shot maybe, or photo from the BOP?
I know what Kent who posts here looks like...if you can provide me
with a
photo of him I would find that absolutely acceptable proof.
If not, what DO you have?
I don't believe this silliness.
I read that Greg was accused of some kind of indecent act with a step
daughter or g/f's kid, but hey...does that mean it's true, or that
it's even
THIS greg?
Gimme a break!
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:59:21 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<Greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:
WHY even argue specifics if the ID is wrong, Betty?
Are you so stupid you don't understand when someone is mocking
you? Are you REALLY that stupid?
This implies that you know the ID is right.
Only in your demented mind.
Arguing wrongful prosecution would work better
if you acknowledged that he is the named party
in the first place.
In ascps I have actually argued wrongful prosecution
on one of my domestics, but I didn't try to
deny that I was the named party at the same time.
Since you weren't wrongfully prosecuted, you abused your
mentally ill ex-wife, there was no reason for you to argue the point.
Not only have you admitted to it, you tried to justify it by
claiming she abused you as well.
This is the problem with Kent and his "rotating denials".
What rotating denials?
I've asked you this several times. You've not answered. Care
to do so now?
He can't even admit that he is the one convicted,
even though he gave away his identity.
When have I posted my real first name? If I've done so, as
you are dishonestly implying, you should be able to cite the post.
In fact, his various rediculous stories, like his old
post that described his own case, from a third
person perspective, casting himself as an observer...
Such FAIRY TALES reveal him to be a bold liar.
The problem is that I was a spectator, not a participant.
Feel free to prove I was the defendant.
Some obstacles you'll need to over come:
The trial I watched occurred in the summer. The trial you
claim is mine occurred in the winter.
The co-defendant in the trial I watched was well into
adulthood. I would guess him at being about 30 at the time. You
claim the other person in the trial you claim is mine was a juvenile.
There are others, but if you can rationalize these conflicts,
I'll let the others go without any argument.
I have crickets on stand-by.
The "rotating denials", many of which partially
contradict others, show him to be a liar.
You've yet to explain what these rotating denials are supposed
to be, even though I've asked multiple times.
If Kent has been in any way LIBELED by misidentification,
then he would stand NO CHANCE in court since
he perpetrated that misidentification himself!
Why are you trying to imply I'm seeking legal action? Have I
even hinted that I would do such?
Another deceptive Gregory Scott Hanson innuendo exposed.
You make it far too easy.
What kind of MORON would want to misidentify themself as a Burglary
FELON?
Is it any worse than the sick man (you) who displays
characteristics consistent with pedophilia?
Pretending for a moment that I did commit the crime, I didn't
have to place my bare hand on any child's genital region.
And then whine about NOT being that person?
You see my mocking you, and others, as whining?
A very odd position to take.
If it's WRONG, Kent, then file a LIBEL suit! You have my address.
No, I don't have your address. I think FM's posted it, but I
didn't save the posts, nor did I commit the information to memory.
This will be difficult for you to accept, but you aren't
important enough for me to devote time to outside of Usenet.
The sole reason I know what little I do of your old posts was
because I read Kane's replies to you.
I see why you're obsessed with him. He kicked your ass
(metaphorically speaking) with every post. That had to wound your
pride a great deal.
Kent has attempted to justify telling really stupid LIES
by pretending they protect the security of his family.
What lies?
You constantly accuse me of lying, yet have been UNABLE to
prove even one.
Wouldn't such a LIBEL suit enhance the security of Kent's family?
How?
Let's say I file suit.
My real name and actual address would be included somewhere
within the paperwork.
I know you wouldn't do anything to me. I'm not weaker than
you. You've read where I've commented about Lin having a black belt
and a permit to carry, so you'll avoid her.
You MIGHT be able to harm Number One Son, but he would fight
back. Odds are you'd want to avoid him.
The Princess would be HIGH on your list. She's not yet two,
so she couldn't defend herself from you sexual attacks. Which is
EXACTLY what you like. A defenseless child you can molest.
No, suing you would most certainly NOT enhance the security of
my family. You'll have to find someone else upon whom to inflict your
sick desires.
Betty, The particulars about my own family that you refer to
are from caseworkers, JUVENILE COURT,
and trial in absentia (forced out), not any
FULLY CONSTITUTIONAL COURT like Kent got.
You plead guilty to abusing your wife.
It's like your comparing a fertive rumour to
Kent's full JURY trial and state SUPREME COURT decision.
Are you claiming your convictions are mere rumor?
If so, why did and do you freely admit to them?
He didn't argue in court that the kid framed him, Betty.
I'd need to be in court, as a defendant, to make such an
argument.
He tried the lame appeal argument he did not get
adequate legal representation because the attorney
didn't try the rediculous claim that an attached garage
is not part of a house, for the purposes of burglary.
I've made no such appeal.
Is there any specific reason you're lying?
What kind of idiot would DARE argue that if they had
been framed by the kid, Betty?
Where are you getting this "framed by the kid" angle? Is
there a specific reason for your presenting this deceptive innuendo?
Serious question.
--
Kent
"I am erudite [sic] but not Buckelyesque"
Erudite Greg Hanson, Jan 22, 2008
Message-ID:
<501ca160-4e19-4318-8e42-8d1f1bbdd9c0@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/769622d66e8e83b4
From: "dragonsgirl" <dragonsg...@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:39:56 GMT Local: Tues, Mar 11 2008 5:39 pm
Subject: Re: KENT WILLS allegations again
And yet from the summary that you posted yourself the juvenile was
found by
the police alone, and was the only person in possession of stolen
items...
Oh yeah...and wel all keep diamond rings in our cars too. Wonder if
their
insurance company believed that one.
[snip]
CAN YOU PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT THE PERSON WHO POSTS
HERE AS
KENT WILLS IS KENT BRADLEY WILLS?
I made those words really big so you can see them really well.
Do have a photo of him, mug shot maybe, or photo from the BOP?
I know what Kent who posts here looks like...if you can provide me
with a
photo of him I would find that absolutely acceptable proof.
If not, what DO you have?
I don't believe this silliness.
I read that Greg was accused of some kind of indecent act with a step
daughter or g/f's kid, but hey...does that mean it's true, or that
it's even
THIS greg?
Gimme a break!
|
| |
| |
""Kent Wills" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
I love to spam 'alt.support.child-protective-services'
(.(*. .*).)
.KUNT.
(.(.* *.).)
Pervert!
Number One
|
| |
| |
WHY even argue specifics if the ID is wrong, Betty?
Are you so stupid you don't understand when someone is mocking
you? Are you REALLY that stupid?
Only in your demented mind.
Nice try!
Arguing wrongful prosecution would work better
if you acknowledged that he is the named party
in the first place.
Since you weren't wrongfully prosecuted, you abused your
mentally ill ex-wife, there was no reason for you to argue the point.
Not only have you admitted to it, you tried to justify it by
claiming she abused you as well.
She was the primary perpetrator, and plead guilty.
The physical evidence indicated her guilt.
This is the problem with Kent and his "rotating denials".
What rotating denials?
I've asked you this several times. You've not answered. Care
to do so now?
I've already explained and you've seen it.
When have I posted my real first name? If I've done so, as
you are dishonestly implying, you should be able to cite the post.
If your name is not Kent, it should be easy for you to prove.
(Recognize the logic? It's your own.)
In fact, his various rediculous stories, like his old
post that described his own case, from a third
person perspective, casting himself as an observer...
Such FAIRY TALES reveal him to be a bold liar.
The problem is that I was a spectator, not a participant.
Feel free to prove I was the defendant.
Some obstacles you'll need to over come:
The trial I watched occurred in the summer. The trial you
claim is mine occurred in the winter.
What proof do you have?
The co-defendant in the trial I watched was well into
adulthood. I would guess him at being about 30 at the time.
Proof?
You claim the other person in the
trial you claim is mine was a juvenile.
You mean County Court and the Iowa Supreme Court, don't you?
There are others, but if you can rationalize these conflicts,
I'll let the others go without any argument.
How magnanimous of you! LOL
I have crickets on stand-by.
The bats in your belfry have to eat something.
The "rotating denials", many of which partially
contradict others, show him to be a liar.
You've yet to explain what these rotating denials are supposed
to be, even though I've asked multiple times.
You have tried to deny
birthday (despite asserting it previously)
middle name ("Wrong Kent Wills")
first name
last name (despite the video showing part of a "Wills" plaque )
You and now Betty have argued that the court did wrong.
(Odd thing if it's not YOURS!)
If Kent has been in any way LIBELED by misidentification,
then he would stand NO CHANCE in court since
he perpetrated that misidentification himself!
Why are you trying to imply I'm seeking legal action?
I suggested it!
Have I even hinted that I would do such?
Another deceptive Gregory Scott Hanson innuendo exposed.
You make it far too easy.
What kind of MORON would want to misidentify themself as a Burglary
FELON?
Is it any worse than the sick man (you) who displays
characteristics consistent with pedophilia?
Pretending for a moment that I did commit the crime, I didn't
have to place my bare hand on any child's genital region.
Nice try. NOBODY would guess that you would
simply make up such a fiction.
And then whine about NOT being that person?
You see my mocking you, and others, as whining?
A very odd position to take.
You're wearing the funny shoes.
If it's WRONG, Kent, then file a LIBEL suit! You have my address.
No, I don't have your address. I think FM's posted it, but I
didn't save the posts, nor did I commit the information to memory.
You never heard of Google?
This will be difficult for you to accept, but you aren't
important enough for me to devote time to outside of Usenet.
With your posting history that is comical.
The sole reason I know what little I do of your old posts was
because I read Kane's replies to you.
I see why you're obsessed with him. He kicked your ass
(metaphorically speaking) with every post. That had to wound your
pride a great deal.
That's why he's hiding out and playing puppeteer
with the hyena pack.
Kent has attempted to justify telling really stupid LIES
by pretending they protect the security of his family.
What lies?
You constantly accuse me of lying, yet have been UNABLE to
prove even one.
You forgot your own comments about how your
old kook group buddies didn't respect your arguments
about protecting your child?
Wouldn't such a LIBEL suit enhance the security of Kent's family?
How?
Let's say I file suit.
My real name and actual address would be included somewhere
within the paperwork.
Kent Bradley Wills.
I know you wouldn't do anything to me. I'm not weaker than
you. You've read where I've commented about Lin having a black belt
and a permit to carry, so you'll avoid her.
You MIGHT be able to harm Number One Son, but he would fight
back. Odds are you'd want to avoid him.
The Princess would be HIGH on your list. She's not yet two,
so she couldn't defend herself from you sexual attacks. Which is
EXACTLY what you like. A defenseless child you can molest.
No, suing you would most certainly NOT enhance the security of
my family. You'll have to find someone else upon whom to inflict your
sick desires.
But you think posting this kind of stuff enhances the security of your
family?
Betty, The particulars about my own family that you refer to
are from caseworkers, JUVENILE COURT,
and trial in absentia (forced out), not any
FULLY CONSTITUTIONAL COURT like Kent got.
You plead guilty to abusing your wife.
That's NOT what Betty referred to.
It's like your comparing a fertive rumour to
Kent's full JURY trial and state SUPREME COURT decision.
Are you claiming your convictions are mere rumor?
If so, why did and do you freely admit to them?
Kent, Betty wasn't talking about my 12 year old domestics.
She was talking about the caseworker fairy tales.
He didn't argue in court that the kid framed him, Betty.
I'd need to be in court, as a defendant, to make such an
argument.
Betty brought it up.
She suggested you were framed by the teenager.
He tried the lame appeal argument he did not get
adequate legal representation because the attorney
didn't try the rediculous claim that an attached garage
is not part of a house, for the purposes of burglary.
I've made no such appeal.
Is there any specific reason you're lying?
You'd have to prove your name is not Kent Bradley Wills DOB 1/8/1969.
Wh
|
| |
| |
In article <l9tgt3t67b7ncts3vsjq852reim78lhlht@4ax.com>,
Kent Wills <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
"I am erudite [sic] but not Buckelyesque"
Erudite Greg Hanson, Jan 22, 2008
Message-ID:
<501ca160-4e19-4318-8e42-8d1f1bbdd9c0@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
"Giggle.
what with misspelling Wm. F. Buckley's name, a proper noun,
when rendered into a verb form ..."
Erudite Kent Wills
Uh, Kent? Buckleyesque is not a verb. Or an adverb either, as you
later claimed.
"and failing to hyphenate 'Pseudo-intellectualism'"
Erudite Kent Wills
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudointellectual
Message-ID: <v4jfp3pg9ob03os7tr9k1uvukvt0r8klo8@4ax.com>
|
| |
| |
Greegor wrote:
[...]
Betty brought it up.
She suggested you were framed by the teenager.
I didn't assume that was what she was saying at all,it appeared to me
she was suggesting you either were to stupid to understand what you were
reading or you didn't read the summary you always post.
here is what she said, copy and pasted from the original post.
And yet from the summary that you posted yourself the juvenile was found by
the police alone, and was the only person in possession of stolen items...
Oh yeah...and wel all keep diamond rings in our cars too. Wonder if their
insurance company believed that one.
end C&P
I don't see any suggestion Kent was framed.
maybe you should read the summary again from a different perspective if
possible,or have an unbiased person read it.
It just doesn't make sense that the kid had the items that were stolen
and the adult was arrested and went to trial for 3rd degree burglary.
[...]
|
| |
| |
n Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:04:49 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<Greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:
G > WHY even argue specifics if the ID is wrong, Betty?
Nice try!
It's simple truth.
Yes, I should have pointed out that it's possible you were
flat out lying, but I figured I'd give you the benefit of the doubt
and indicate that your mind is so messed up that you couldn't see the
difference.
Was I wrong? Was it an intentional act of deception on your
part?
Arguing wrongful prosecution would work better
if you acknowledged that he is the named party
in the first place.
She was the primary perpetrator, and plead guilty.
The physical evidence indicated her guilt.
I can't speak to what she did or did not do, or her charges or
disposition of them.
The fact remains that you openly and freely admitted that you
abused your mentally ill wife.
This is the problem with Kent and his "rotating denials".
What rotating denials?
I've asked you this several times. You've not answered. Care
to do so now?
I've already explained and you've seen it.
You've not done so as of my writing this.
You have tried to twist the truth, and added your own lies,
but you've not been able to offer any rotating denials.
If your name is not Kent, it should be easy for you to prove.
(Recognize the logic? It's your own.)
It is very easy. That I don't see any reason to allow you
such knowledge (you'd use it to track my family down and force your
perverted fantasies onto my daughter), doesn't mean I can't prove it.
In fact, his various rediculous stories, like his old
post that described his own case, from a third
person perspective, casting himself as an observer...
Such FAIRY TALES reveal him to be a bold liar.
What proof do you have?
The dates, dullard.
Or do you think June and December are the same months?
Proof?
I didn't think to get a picture. I expect such things are
forbidden at trial, though I've not had cause to check.
You mean County Court and the Iowa Supreme Court, don't you?
No. The state trial.
What is it with you and the inability to be honest about
anything?
How magnanimous of you! LOL
I note you can't rationalize the conflicts.
I didn't expect you would.
The bats in your belfry have to eat something.
And the B.S. you consistently spew isn't very appetizing.
The "rotating denials", many of which partially
contradict others, show him to be a liar.
You have tried to deny
birthday (despite asserting it previously)
Which one?
Of all the dates I've listed, one is correct. Can you figure
out which is it?
middle name ("Wrong Kent Wills")
first name
These were the same denial.
last name (despite the video showing part of a "Wills" plaque )
I've never claimed my last name isn't Wills.
Is there any specific reason for your lying about this?
You and now Betty have argued that the court did wrong.
(Odd thing if it's not YOURS!)
Because no one can comment about the trial of another?
Someone better contact The Innocence Project. Bar you're
being deceptive in your implication, they are completely wrong in
doing what they do.
If Kent has been in any way LIBELED by misidentification,
then he would stand NO CHANCE in court since
he perpetrated that misidentification himself!
I suggested it!
You implied I was seeking it.
Why would you present such a lie via innuendo?
BTW, you missed a perfect opportunity. Or, more accurately,
whom ever is authoring your posts missed it.
You addressed Kent, and I replied. The author of your post
should have jumped on that.
I'm a bit disappointed, actually.
What kind of MORON would want to misidentify themself as a Burglary
FELON?
Nice try. NOBODY would guess that you would
simply make up such a fiction.
YOU claimed to have waited in the bathroom while Lisa's
daughter was showering.
And DHS claimed you touched her genital area with your bare
hands. By YOUR standards, you did. Reference Dan and the puppet
bear.
And then whine about NOT being that person?
You see my mocking you, and others, as whining?
A very odd position to take.
You're wearing the funny shoes.
That makes no sense.
If it's WRONG, Kent, then file a LIBEL suit! You have my address.
You never heard of Google?
You didn't write that I have access to your address.
Technically everyone with a browser has access. You stated I have
your address.
Despite your claim, I don't have it. I have no need for it.
With your posting history that is comical.
Can you cite where I've indicated that I devote time to you
outside of Usenet?
Keep in mind, I'll check your citation(s) for accuracy.
|
| |
| |
""Kent Wills" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
I love to spam 'alt.support.child-protective-services'
(.(*. .*).)
.KUNT.
(.(.* *.).)
Pervert!
Number One
|
| |
| |
know "our" Kent IS Kent Bradley Wills, BURGLARY FELON.
But IF our Kent is not Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8, 1969
but a ""false trail"" Kent set up, then that's HIS OWN fault.
What kind of dumb ass would pick a
BURGLARY FELON as a FALSE identity?
Who would be to blame if that were true?
What are Kent and his friends #@&@
ing about?
That it worked?
If he worked so hard to hang a false ID on himself,
then WHY protest that it succeeded?
IN PRINT:
West's North Western Reporter
Second Series
A Unit of the National Reporter System
Volume 696 N.W.2d
Cite as 696 N.W.2d 20 (Iowa 2005)
STATE of Iowa, Appellee
v.
Kent Bradley Wills
No. 04-0202
Supreme Court of Iowa
May 6, 2005
http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-02=
02.asp?search=3D+Kent+Wills+#_1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 31 / 04-0202
Filed May 6, 2005
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
KENT BRADLEY WILLS,
Appellant.
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/TrialSimpFrame
Kent Wills
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=3D1155768
http://snipurl.com/felun
Name Kent Bradley Wills Offender Number 1155768
Sex M Birth Date 01/08/1969 Age 39 Location Interstate Compact
Offense BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE County Of Commitment Polk
Commitment Date 01/16/2004 Duration TDD/SDD * 01/16/2009
* TDD =3D Tentative Discharge Date * SDD =3D Supervision Discharge Date
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk Probation C Felony
Polk
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 11/25/2003
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=3Dia&vol=3Dsc%5C20050=
506%5C04-0202&invol=3D1
http://tinyurl.com/2n229g
Google archive of the findlaw document
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=3Dcache:6mvDMR00ZsQJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/scri=
pts/getcase.pl%3Fcourt%3Dia%26vol%3Dsc%255C20050506%255C04-0202%26invol%3D1+=
kent+wills+iowa+burglary&hl=3Den&ct=3Dclnk&cd=3D2&gl=3Dus
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.
KENT B WILLS 39
ANKENY, IA ( 3 addresses )
ROGERS, AR
MARSHALLTOWN, IA ( you mentioned living there)
HANOVER PARK, IL ( 2 addresses )
VILLA PARK, IL
BARTLETT, IL
TIFFANY J WILLS
JANET RAE WILLS
FREDERICK ALFRED WILLS
FRED WILLS (I laughed about the different Freds)
FREDRIC A WILLS
KELLY M WILLS
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 (Iow
|
| |
| |
Greegor wrote:
I know "our" Kent IS Kent Bradley Wills, BURGLARY FELON.
OH REALLY? you have seen a photo of him holding his drivers license by
his face and posting to usenet? a video?
wow!
But IF our Kent is not Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8, 1969
but a ""false trail"" Kent set up, then that's HIS OWN fault.
What kind of dumb ass would pick a
BURGLARY FELON as a FALSE identity?
so you are saying child molester\spouse abuser is a better identity?
Who would be to blame if that were true?
What are Kent and his friends #@&@
ing about?
That it worked?
If he worked so hard to hang a false ID on himself,
then WHY protest that it succeeded?
[...]
|
| |
| |
Greegor wrote:
OH REALLY? you have seen a photo of him holding his drivers license by his
face and posting to usenet? a video?
Oh cut the #@($ Kevin. It's your HERO! The Boo Hoo act doesn't work.
|
| |
| |
G > WHY even argue specifics if the ID is wrong, Betty?
Are you so stupid you don't understand when someone is mocking
you? Are you REALLY that stupid?
Only in your demented mind.
Nice try!
Arguing wrongful prosecution would work better
if you acknowledged that he is the named party
in the first place.
Since you weren't wrongfully prosecuted, you abused your
mentally ill ex-wife, there was no reason for you to argue the point.
Not only have you admitted to it, you tried to justify it by
claiming she abused you as well.
She was the primary perpetrator, and plead guilty.
The physical evidence indicated her guilt.
This is the problem with Kent and his "rotating denials".
What rotating denials?
I've asked you this several times. You've not answered. Care
to do so now?
I've already explained and you've seen it.
When have I posted my real first name? If I've done so, as
you are dishonestly implying, you should be able to cite the post.
If your name is not Kent, it should be easy for you to prove.
(Recognize the logic? It's your own.)
In fact, his various rediculous stories, like his old
post that described his own case, from a third
person perspective, casting himself as an observer...
Such FAIRY TALES reveal him to be a bold liar.
The problem is that I was a spectator, not a participant.
Feel free to prove I was the defendant.
Some obstacles you'll need to over come:
The trial I watched occurred in the summer. The trial you
claim is mine occurred in the winter.
What proof do you have?
The co-defendant in the trial I watched was well into
adulthood. I would guess him at being about 30 at the time.
Proof?
You claim the other person in the
trial you claim is mine was a juvenile.
You mean County Court and the Iowa Supreme Court, don't you?
There are others, but if you can rationalize these conflicts,
I'll let the others go without any argument.
How magnanimous of you! LOL
I have crickets on stand-by.
The bats in your belfry have to eat something.
The "rotating denials", many of which partially
contradict others, show him to be a liar.
You've yet to explain what these rotating denials are supposed
to be, even though I've asked multiple times.
You have tried to deny
birthday (despite asserting it previously)
middle name ("Wrong Kent Wills")
first name
last name (despite the video showing part of a "Wills" plaque )
You and now Betty have argued that the court did wrong.
(Odd thing if it's not YOURS!)
If Kent has been in any way LIBELED by misidentification,
then he would stand NO CHANCE in court since
he perpetrated that misidentification himself!
Why are you trying to imply I'm seeking legal action?
I suggested it!
Have I even hinted that I would do such?
Another deceptive Gregory Scott Hanson innuendo exposed.
You make it far too easy.
What kind of MORON would want to misidentify themself as a Burglary
FELON?
Is it any worse than the sick man (you) who displays
characteristics consistent with pedophilia?
Pretending for a moment that I did commit the crime, I didn't
have to place my bare hand on any child's genital region.
Nice try. NOBODY would guess that you would
simply make up such a fiction.
And then whine about NOT being that person?
You see my mocking you, and others, as whining?
A very odd position to take.
You're wearing the funny shoes.
If it's WRONG, Kent, then file a LIBEL suit! You have my address.
No, I don't have your address. I think FM's posted it, but I
didn't save the posts, nor did I commit the information to memory.
You never heard of Google?
This will be difficult for you to accept, but you aren't
important enough for me to devote time to outside of Usenet.
With your posting history that is comical.
The sole reason I know what little I do of your old posts was
because I read Kane's replies to you.
I see why you're obsessed with him. He kicked your ass
(metaphorically speaking) with every post. That had to wound your
pride a great deal.
That's why he's hiding out and playing puppeteer
with the hyena pack.
Kent has attempted to justify telling really stupid LIES
by pretending they protect the security of his family.
What lies?
You constantly accuse me of lying, yet have been UNABLE to
prove even one.
You forgot your own comments about how your
old kook group buddies didn't respect your arguments
about protecting your child?
Wouldn't such a LIBEL suit enhance the security of Kent's family?
How?
Let's say I file suit.
My real name and actual address would be included somewhere
within the paperwork.
Kent Bradley Wills.
I know you wouldn't do anything to me. I'm not weaker than
you. You've read where I've commented about Lin having a black belt
and a permit to carry, so you'll avoid her.
You MIGHT be able to harm Number One Son, but he would fight
back. Odds are you'd want to avoid him.
The Princess would be HIGH on your list. She's not yet two,
so she couldn't defend herself from you sexual attacks. Which is
EXACTLY what you like. A defenseless child you can molest.
No, suing you would most certainly NOT enhance the security of
my family. You'll have to find someone else upon whom to inflict your
sick desires.
But you think posting this kind of stuff enhances the security of your
family?
Betty, The particulars about my own family that you refer to
are from caseworkers, JUVENILE COURT,
and trial in absentia (forced out), not any
FULLY CONSTITUTIONAL COURT like Kent got.
You plead guilty to abusing your wife.
That's NOT what Betty referred to.
It's like your comparing a fertive rumour to
Kent's full JURY trial and state SUPREME COURT decision.
Are you claiming your convictions are mere rumor?
If so, why did and do you freely admit to them?
Kent, Betty wasn't talking about my 12 year old domestics.
She was talking about the caseworker fairy tales.
He didn't argue in court that the kid framed him, Betty.
I'd need to be in court, as a defendant, to make such an
argument.
Betty brought it up.
She suggested you were framed by the teenager.
****No I didn't.
I was saying that the child was the only person to have been found with
stolen property on thema nd seen in the area according to the recors posted
here that I read.
The adult male was not found in the vicinity, or there was no mention of it,
and
|
| |
| |
I know "our" Kent IS Kent Bradley Wills, BURGLARY FELON.
But IF our Kent is not Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8, 1969
but a ""false trail"" Kent set up, then that's HIS OWN fault.
*****Send me his mug shot. Then I will believe it.
Else, how could you *know*?
What kind of dumb ass would pick a
BURGLARY FELON as a FALSE identity?
Who would be to blame if that were true?
What are Kent and his friends #@&@
ing about?
That it worked?
If he worked so hard to hang a false ID on himself,
then WHY protest that it succeeded?
IN PRINT:
West's North Western Reporter
Second Series
A Unit of the National Reporter System
Volume 696 N.W.2d
Cite as 696 N.W.2d 20 (Iowa 2005)
STATE of Iowa, Appellee
v.
Kent Bradley Wills
No. 04-0202
Supreme Court of Iowa
May 6, 2005
http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp?search=+Kent+Wills+#_1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 31 / 04-0202
Filed May 6, 2005
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
KENT BRADLEY WILLS,
Appellant.
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/TrialSimpFrame
Kent Wills
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
http://snipurl.com/felun
Name Kent Bradley Wills Offender Number 1155768
Sex M Birth Date 01/08/1969 Age 39 Location Interstate Compact
Offense BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE County Of Commitment Polk
Commitment Date 01/16/2004 Duration TDD/SDD * 01/16/2009
* TDD = Tentative Discharge Date * SDD = Supervision Discharge Date
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk Probation C Felony
Polk
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 11/25/2003
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
http://tinyurl.com/2n229g
Google archive of the findlaw document
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:6mvDMR00ZsQJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl%3Fcourt%3Dia%26vol%3Dsc%255C20050506%255C04-0202%26invol%3D1+kent+wills+iowa+burglary&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
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.
KENT B WILLS 39
ANKENY, IA ( 3 addresses )
ROGERS, AR
MARSHALLTOWN, IA ( you mentioned living there)
HANOVER PARK, IL ( 2 addresses )
VILLA PARK, IL
BARTLETT, IL
TIFFANY J WILLS
JANET RAE WILLS
FREDERICK ALFRED WILLS
FRED WILLS (I laughed about the different Freds)
FREDRIC A WILLS
KELLY M WILLS
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. Fin
|
| |
| |
I know "our" Kent IS Kent Bradley Wills, BURGLARY FELON.
Then prove it. If you know it, then you must have the evidence that
proves it.
But IF our Kent is not Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8, 1969
but a ""false trail"" Kent set up, then that's HIS OWN fault.
As you already know, but lack the honesty to admit, the name Kent was
chosen for me.
What kind of dumb ass would pick a
BURGLARY FELON as a FALSE identity?
One who had a serious ill (so ill he makes you look like the epidome of
mental health) stalker.
But hey, explain how all the other felonies vanished from the record.
By now you've read the post regarding the matter, including the discussion
tjab and I had about how I had three felonies (Iowa's three strikes law
would have come into play).
How did they all of the other ones vanish?
Please don't ignore this. If you can't do it, jsut state you can't.
Who would be to blame if that were true?
What are Kent and his friends #@&@
ing about?
You and Kenny-Bob are the only two #@&@
ing.
A few people are mocking you. I am amoung those people.
That it worked?
If he worked so hard to hang a false ID on himself,
then WHY protest that it succeeded?
Who is protesting?
Is your mind so far gone that you see people mocking you as a protest?
Seek profesional help before you become a danger to yourself. You've
already proved you're a danger to others.
IN PRINT:
West's North Western Reporter
Second Series
A Unit of the National Reporter System
Volume 696 N.W.2d
Cite as 696 N.W.2d 20 (Iowa 2005)
STATE of Iowa, Appellee
v.
Kent Bradley Wills
No. 04-0202
Supreme Court of Iowa
May 6, 2005
http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp?search=+Kent+Wills+#_1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 31 / 04-0202
Filed May 6, 2005
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
KENT BRADLEY WILLS,
Appellant.
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/TrialSimpFrame
Kent Wills
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
http://snipurl.com/felun
Name Kent Bradley Wills Offender Number 1155768
Sex M Birth Date 01/08/1969 Age 39 Location Interstate Compact
Offense BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE County Of Commitment Polk
Commitment Date 01/16/2004 Duration TDD/SDD * 01/16/2009
* TDD = Tentative Discharge Date * SDD = Supervision Discharge Date
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk Probation C Felony
Polk
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 11/25/2003
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
http://tinyurl.com/2n229g
Google archive of the findlaw document
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:6mvDMR00ZsQJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl%3Fcourt%3Dia%26vol%3Dsc%255C20050506%255C04-0202%26invol%3D1+kent+wills+iowa+burglary&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
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.
KENT B WILLS 39
ANKENY, IA ( 3 addresses )
ROGERS, AR
MARSHALLTOWN, IA ( you mentioned living there)
HANOVER PARK, IL ( 2 addresses )
VILLA PARK, IL
BARTLETT, IL
TIFFANY J WILLS
JANET RAE WILLS
FREDERICK ALFRED WILLS
FRED WILLS (I laughed about the different Freds)
FREDRIC A WILLS
KELLY M WILLS
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. Althoug
|
| |
| |
Greegor wrote:
OH REALLY? you have seen a photo of him holding his drivers license by his
face and posting to usenet? a video?
wow!
Another in the LONG line of Gregory Scott Hanson lies exposed.
But IF our Kent is not Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8, 1969
but a ""false trail"" Kent set up, then that's HIS OWN fault.
What kind of dumb ass would pick a
BURGLARY FELON as a FALSE identity?
so you are saying child molester\spouse abuser is a better identity?
That's the one Greg has.
The difference is, of course, that Greg's is 100% real. Or he's lied.
Either is possible, really.
--
"Jek rat, jek jakha, jek dji, jek porh, jek baht."
Romani: [We are of the] Same blood, the same eyes,
the same soul, the same belly, and of one happiness.
|
| |
| |
Oh cut the #@($ Kevin. It's your HERO! The Boo Hoo act doesn't work.
Is there any SPECIFIC reason you think truth doesn't work?
|
| |
| |
""Kent Wills" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
I love to spam 'alt.support.child-protective-services'
(.(*. .*).)
.KUNT.
(.(.* *.).)
Pervert!
Number One
|
| |
| |
I know "our" Kent IS Kent Bradley Wills, BURGLARY FELON.
KW > Then prove it. If you know it, then you
KW > must have the evidence that proves it.
G > But IF our Kent is not Kent Bradley
G > Wills DOB Jan 8, 1969 but a ""false trail""
G > Kent set up, then that's HIS OWN fault.
BW > Send me his mug shot. Then I will believe it.
No you wouldn't.
BW > Else, how could you *know*?
Because Kent said so himself !
Why would I care if he's an identity thief or a Burglary Felon?
KW > As you already know, but lack the honesty
KW > to admit, the name Kent was chosen for me.
By your Mom or your Dad?
You let somebody ELSE set up a false identity
for you? How did they FORCE you to post
your birthday too? <grin>
G > What kind of dumb ass would pick a
G > BURGLARY FELON as a FALSE identity?
KW > One who had a serious ill (so ill he makes
KW > you look like the [epitome] of mental health)
KW > stalker. But hey, explain how all the other
KW > felonies vanished from the record.
What other felonies? Got proof?
KW > By now you've read the post regarding
KW > the matter, including the discussion
KW > tjab and I had about how I had three
KW > felonies (Iowa's three strikes law would
KW > have come into play).
KW > How did they all of the other ones vanish?
KW > Please don't ignore this.
KW > If you can't do it, [just] state you can't.
Got proof? Archive link? What were the
other felonies? How would these phantom
felonies on the record of somebody you
claim you AREN'T, be of any use to you?
[ re: alleged misidentification ]
G > Who would be to blame if that were true?
G > What are Kent and his friends #@&@
ing about?
KW > You and Kenny-Bob are the only two #@&@
ing.
KW > A few people are mocking you.
KW > I am amoung those people.
G > That it worked?
G >
G > If he worked so hard to hang a false ID on himself,
G > then WHY protest that it succeeded?
KW > Who is protesting?
KW > Is your mind so far gone that you see people
KW > mocking you as a protest?
KW > Seek profesional help before you become
KW > a danger to yourself. You've
KW > already proved you're a danger to others.
Nice try!
Do you think you answered my questions?
IN PRINT:
West's North Western Reporter
Second Series
A Unit of the National Reporter System
Volume 696 N.W.2d
Cite as 696 N.W.2d 20 (Iowa 2005)
STATE of Iowa, Appellee
v.
Kent Bradley Wills
No. 04-0202
Supreme Court of Iowa
May 6, 2005
http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-02=
02.asp?search=3D+Kent+Wills+#_1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 31 / 04-0202
Filed May 6, 2005
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
KENT BRADLEY WILLS,
Appellant.
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/TrialSimpFrame
Kent Wills
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=3D1155768
http://snipurl.com/felun
Name Kent Bradley Wills Offender Number 1155768
Sex M Birth Date 01/08/1969 Age 39 Location Interstate Compact
Offense BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE County Of Commitment Polk
Commitment Date 01/16/2004 Duration TDD/SDD * 01/16/2009
* TDD =3D Tentative Discharge Date * SDD =3D Supervision Discharge Date
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk Probation C Felony
Polk
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 11/25/2003
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=3Dia&vol=3Dsc%5C20050=
506%5C04-0202&invol=3D1
http://tinyurl.com/2n229g
Google archive of the findlaw document
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=3Dcache:6mvDMR00ZsQJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/scri=
pts/getcase.pl%3Fcourt%3Dia%26vol%3Dsc%255C20050506%255C04-0202%26invol%3D1+=
kent+wills+iowa+burglary&hl=3Den&ct=3Dclnk&cd=3D2&gl=3Dus
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.
KENT B WILLS 39
ANKENY, IA ( 3 addresses )
ROGERS, AR
MARSHALLTOWN, IA ( you mentioned living there)
HANOVER PARK, IL ( 2 addresses )
VILLA PARK, IL
BARTLETT, IL
TIFFANY J WILLS
JANET RAE WILLS
FREDERICK ALFRED WILLS
FRED WILLS (I laughed about the different Freds)
FREDRIC A WILLS
KELLY M WILLS
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
|
| |
| |
G > I know "our" Kent IS Kent Bradley Wills, BURGLARY FELON.
KW > Then prove it. If you know it, then you
KW > must have the evidence that proves it.
G > But IF our Kent is not Kent Bradley
G > Wills DOB Jan 8, 1969 but a ""false trail""
G > Kent set up, then that's HIS OWN fault.
BW > Send me his mug shot. Then I will believe it.
No you wouldn't.
****Sure I would. If you provided me with a link to the mug shot of the
criminal you claim is him, and they match up, certainly couldnot deny it.
BW > Else, how could you *know*?
Because Kent said so himself !
*****The same way you told us that you were accused of sexual mistreatment
of a child?
Why would I care if he's an identity thief or a Burglary Felon?
*****For the same reason you care to search for my leal records,
etc...you're a stalker.
KW > As you already know, but lack the honesty
KW > to admit, the name Kent was chosen for me.
By your Mom or your Dad?
You let somebody ELSE set up a false identity
for you? How did they FORCE you to post
your birthday too? <grin>
G > What kind of dumb ass would pick a
G > BURGLARY FELON as a FALSE identity?
KW > One who had a serious ill (so ill he makes
KW > you look like the [epitome] of mental health)
KW > stalker. But hey, explain how all the other
KW > felonies vanished from the record.
What other felonies? Got proof?
KW > By now you've read the post regarding
KW > the matter, including the discussion
KW > tjab and I had about how I had three
KW > felonies (Iowa's three strikes law would
KW > have come into play).
KW > How did they all of the other ones vanish?
KW > Please don't ignore this.
KW > If you can't do it, [just] state you can't.
Got proof? Archive link? What were the
other felonies? How would these phantom
felonies on the record of somebody you
claim you AREN'T, be of any use to you?
[ re: alleged misidentification ]
G > Who would be to blame if that were true?
G > What are Kent and his friends #@&@
ing about?
KW > You and Kenny-Bob are the only two #@&@
ing.
KW > A few people are mocking you.
KW > I am amoung those people.
G > That it worked?
G >
G > If he worked so hard to hang a false ID on himself,
G > then WHY protest that it succeeded?
KW > Who is protesting?
KW > Is your mind so far gone that you see people
KW > mocking you as a protest?
KW > Seek profesional help before you become
KW > a danger to yourself. You'v | | |
