State of Iowa v. Sean Christopher Bright

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-1951
Filed January 9, 2025

STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

SEAN CHRISTOPHER BRIGHT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Elizabeth Dupuich,

Judge.

A defendant convicted for failing to appear at sentencing in a separate

criminal matter appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for new trial.

AFFIRMED.

Webb L. Wassmer of Wassmer Law Office, PLC, Marion, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and David Banta, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered by Greer, P.J., Langholz, J., and Telleen, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2025).
2

TELLEEN, Senior Judge.

I. Background

This case begins where another was supposed to end. In 2022, Sean Bright

pled guilty to a criminal charge for possessing a firearm. Bright was released on

bond pending a sentencing hearing set for January 3, 2023, in Linn County. But

when that day arrived, he wasn’t in the courtroom. According to Bright, he was

somewhere in northern Georgia, out of gas and short on money. The State says

he was hiding. A jury found Bright guilty of failing to appear in violation of Iowa

Code section 811.2(8) (2023). Bright appeals the denial of his motion for new trial,

arguing the weight of the evidence shows his absence was involuntary.

II. Discussion

Our rules of criminal procedure permit a district court to order a new trial if

the jury’s verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Iowa R. Crim.

P. 2.24(2)(b)(7) (2023). A new trial is appropriate “only in the extraordinary case

in which the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict rendered.” State

v. Ernst, 954 N.W.2d 50, 60 (Iowa 2021). “The question for the court is not whether

there was sufficient credible evidence to support the verdict rendered or an

alternative verdict, but whether a greater amount of credible evidence suggests

the verdict rendered was a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Ary, 877 N.W.2d 686,

706 (Iowa 2016) (cleaned up). In answering that question, the district court may

weigh the evidence and consider the credibility of witnesses. Id. Our review is for

abuse of discretion. Ernst, 954 N.W.2d at 60.

A criminal defendant released pending entry of judgment may be convicted

of a new offense if the defendant “willfully fails to appear” in court as ordered. Iowa
3

Code § 811.2(8). We have interpreted a willful failure to mean “a deliberate or

intended violation, as distinguished from an accidental, inadvertent, or negligent

violation of an order.” State v. Brown, No. 01-0742, 2002 WL 22184, at *1 (Iowa

Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2002) (per curiam). Bright contends the trial evidence weighs

heavily against a finding of willfulness—primarily based on his own testimony

about a series of mishaps that left him stranded out-of-state on the day of his

sentencing. We begin with Bright’s version of events.

1. Bright’s Account

Bright testified that on December 26, 2022, he decided to take a trip to

Florida. He wanted to cross skydiving off his “bucket list.” Bright and his wife had

been saving for a getaway, and so they boarded their vehicle with $1800 cash and

left Cedar Rapids for the coast. By the 28th, they had reached Alabama. It was

there that the couple realized both of their phones were missing. According to

Bright, they hadn’t been “using [the phones] at all, but [they] did tear the truck

apart” in an unsuccessful attempt to find them.

Bright and his wife arrived in the Viero Beach area on December 31. Some

fellow skydivers at the hotel where they stayed told them about a jump site in

nearby Sebastian, Florida. The next morning—New Year’s Day—Bright took his

leap. A commemorative certificate was admitted at trial. The thrill was over by

noon, and the couple turned back toward Iowa. To Bright’s recollection, the return

trip from Florida was supposed to take about seventeen hours. He planned to be

back by the afternoon of January 2, well in advance of his January 3 sentencing.

He testified that he “fully” and “absolutely” intended to be in court.
4

Bright claims misfortune intervened. According to his testimony, the couple

stopped for gas just past the Georgia border, and they learned their money was

missing. Bright’s account as to what happened next was muddled. On direct

examination, he alleged the “first thing” he did was pawn a laptop for $50 of gas

money. When asked on cross about how he found a pawn shop open on New

Year’s Day, Bright revised his account—explaining that, after learning the money

was gone, he and his wife spent the night in a Walmart parking lot before setting

out for a pawnshop on the morning of January 2.

Bright testified that when the laptop money ran dry, he and his wife pawned

some jewelry for another three-quarters tank, which carried them as far as northern

Georgia. But at that point, the couple was “dead in the water.” They were out of

gas, and they “didn’t have really anything else to get rid of.” According to Bright,

they spent ten days stuck in place. Neither Bright nor his wife ever attempted to

alert Bright’s attorney or seek the assistance of his friends or relatives in Iowa.

Eventually, the couple was able to sell some camping gear for nearly enough

money to make it home. A handout from a gas station owner took them the last

100 miles. Bright was taken into custody forty-five minutes after returning to Cedar

Rapids.

2. The State’s Case

The State’s lead witness was Tammy O’Connor, whose company posted

the $5000 bond securing Bright’s pre-sentence release. O’Connor testified

regarding the routine reminders her office sent Bright and his wife by text message

regarding approaching court dates in Bright’s case. Bright had been “very good

about checking in.” But when O’Connor sent Bright a message on December 30
5

to confirm his upcoming sentencing, he didn’t respond. O’Connor tried to reach

Bright by phone. The parties agree that Bright called O’Connor on December 31

to confirm he was aware of his court date.

O’Connor testified that, on January 2, several of Bright’s friends and family

members informed her that he had sold his truck and left town for Florida.

O’Connor also saw a Facebook post describing the couple as missing persons.

Concerned that Bright planned to skip bail, O’Connor circulated her own post

stating she believed Bright was “on the run” and requesting information as to his

whereabouts. O’Connor’s post was shared over 900 times. On January 19, she

received a tip that Bright was back in Cedar Rapids. O’Connor located Bright the

same day and turned him over to police.

The State also introduced recordings of jail calls placed by Bright on the day

of his arrest. In one of the calls, Bright’s daughter informs him she was questioned

by federal investigators. Bright asks, “you didn’t tell them anything, did you?” In

another, Bright’s wife—who was also questioned—tells Bright that the FBI knew

about a TracFone with a Florida number that Bright used to contact family and

friends in Iowa. He then states, “I told them we were on vacation,” and “I’m sticking

to that; we were not running.” Bright’s wife assures him that she told the FBI “the

only reason we went back and forth from Florida is because we were out of money

and looking for work.”

3. Weight of the Evidence

The district court found that the weight of credible evidence supported

Bright’s conviction, noting Bright’s “own testimony demonstrated that he willfully

failed to appear.” On appeal, Bright argues the district court improperly discredited
6

his account. He contends the State offered no evidence to contradict his testimony

about losing his cell phone and gas money. We disagree.

Key to Bright’s defense was an implicit assertion that he had no ability to

alert his attorney, the bond company, or anyone else about his empty tank

predicament. However, O’Connor testified that she heard from Bright on

December 31—two days after he and his wife allegedly lost their cell phones.1 And

during a recorded conversation, Bright and his wife discussed calls they made from

a TracPhone with a Florida number. Even assuming the couple had no phone of

their own, Bright apparently declined to ask anyone for help. That decision is

irreconcilable with his “absolute[]” intention to appear in court. Cf. Brown, 2002

WL 22184, at *1 (noting on review for sufficiency of the evidence that a defendant’s

failure to seek other transportation in lieu of his broken-down car supported a

verdict for willful failure to appear).

There are more problems with Bright’s story. For instance, the math doesn’t

add up. Bright testified he was marooned for ten days beginning on January 2.

But that leaves an additional week unaccounted for between the beginning of his

return trip on January 1 and his arrival in Cedar Rapids on January 19. In a

recorded call, Bright’s wife indicates the couple went “back and forth from Florida”

looking for work—which is contrary to Bright’s account of reaching northern

Georgia on fumes. Other dents in Bright’s credibility include his mixed-up

chronology of events following the discovery of the missing money and his failure

1 At trial, Bright sought to rebut O’Connor’s testimony by introducing a call log from

his cell phone carrier. That exhibit doesn’t do him any favors. It shows three
outgoing texts from Bright’s phone between December 31 and January 3. Phone
activity after January 3 was excluded from the log.
7

to explain why he and his wife waited ten days to sell the camping equipment that

paid their way home.

Bright urges us to focus on the fact that he had “no incentive to avoid

sentencing.” Undisputedly, he faced only two years’ probation under his plea deal

for the gun charge. The State suggests Bright may have been running from bigger

problems, citing federal investigators’ interest in his disappearance. But it is

unnecessary to speculate about Bright’s reasons. A worthy motive is not an

element under section 811.2(8). And even if the record raises questions about

why Bright would run, those questions do not resolve the several incongruencies

in his testimony.

Ultimately, our role in this case “is limited to a review of the exercise of

discretion by the trial court, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is

against the weight of the evidence.” State v. Heard, 934 N.W.2d 433, 444–45

(Iowa 2019) (citation omitted). We find the district court was well within its

discretion to discount Bright’s version of events and find the weight of credible

evidence supported the jury’s conclusion that Bright willfully failed to appear.

4. Conclusion

This is not the rare “case in which the evidence preponderates heavily

against the verdict rendered.” Ary, 877 N.W.2d at 706. If the evidence tips against

anything, it is against Bright’s account. The district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying Bright’s motion for a new trial.

AFFIRMED.