State of Iowa v. Henry Earl Dinkins

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-1682
Filed July 2, 2025

STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

HENRY EARL DINKINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Henry W. Latham II,

Judge.

A defendant convicted of first-degree murder and first-degree kidnapping

appeals his convictions. AFFIRMED.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa R. Wilson,

Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Joseph D. Ferrentino, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Badding, J., and

Vogel, S.J.*

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

(2025).
2

VOGEL, Senior Judge.

Henry Dinkins was convicted of first-degree murder and first-degree

kidnapping following the abduction and death of a ten-year-old girl, B.T. Dinkins

appeals those convictions, arguing the State failed to prove each offense beyond

a reasonable doubt. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State,

we find sufficient evidence supports his convictions. Thus, we affirm.

I. Factual Background and Proceedings.

In July 2020, Dinkins arranged for his eight-year-old son, D.L., to spend the

night at his apartment. Dinkins and D.L.’s mother, Aishia, were not living together;

D.L. lived with Aishia and his two half-siblings—one of which was B.T., a ten-year-

old girl. On July 9, Dinkins arrived to pick up D.L., but D.L. wanted B.T. to go with

him, which she did. At Dinkins’s apartment—which he shared with his girlfriend,

Andrea, in Davenport—the two children played video games and later went to

sleep in the main bedroom. They each slept in a 4XL white t-shirt, provided by

Dinkins.

Around 3:00 a.m. on July 10, Andrea awoke and noticed Dinkins and B.T.

were not in the apartment. Andrea called Dinkins to ask where he was, but his

phone was turned off. Concerned, Andrea stayed up to see if Dinkins would return

with B.T., and Dinkins indeed entered the apartment around 3:30 a.m. Andrea

tried to talk to Dinkins, but he merely grabbed an item Andrea could not see from

his closet and told her, “I’ll be back.” Andrea then looked outside and saw B.T.

standing next to Dinkins’s vehicle—a Chevrolet Impala—still wearing the white

t-shirt she wore to bed. Dinkins then drove away, presumably with B.T. as she

was no longer standing where Andrea had just seen her.
3

Surveillance footage picked up Dinkins at a gas station a few minutes later.

He entered the shop and bought gas, cigarettes, and a lighter from the clerk.

During the sale, Dinkins closely monitored his Impala, glancing at the car seven

times in one minute.

Dinkins was next seen again—alone—around 4:30 a.m. by a man, Jerod

Brink. Brink was driving down Highway 61 on his way to work when he noticed

Dinkins on the side of the road trying to flag him down. Brink pulled over and

Dinkins explained his car was stuck in a ditch. Brink then drove Dinkins to where

his car had gone off the road and helped Dinkins pull his Impala out of the ditch.

The location where Dinkins’s Impala was stuck was next to Kunau Implement in

DeWitt—just north of a pond.

Around 6:00 a.m., Dinkins returned to the apartment and picked up D.L.

B.T. was not with Dinkins. He then drove with D.L. to a Walmart in Clinton, despite

another Walmart being located very close to the apartment in Davenport. A receipt

showed Dinkins bought two jugs of bleach from the Clinton Walmart at 7:08 a.m.

From there, Dinkins drove with D.L. back to the pond near Kunau Implement. D.L.

stayed in the car but observed his father pour bleach near some bushes. The two

then drove back to Davenport but went to Dinkins’s motor home instead of the

apartment.

A little after 8:00 a.m., Dinkins called Aishia and told her he had just

awakened and discovered that B.T. was missing. He told her he was heading to

the police station, but when Aishia later called the police to report B.T. missing,

they confirmed Dinkins had not been at the station. An officer later met Aishia and

Dinkins at the apartment. The officer asked Dinkins for some identifying
4

information, and Dinkins claimed he did not know his home address or his phone

number. The officer then obtained consent to look around the apartment to see if

B.T. was perhaps hiding. While the officer searched, Dinkins discretely left the

scene. Over the next three hours, he ignored six phone calls and a text message

from law enforcement.

Dinkins appeared at the police station around noon. During his police

interview, Dinkins reported looking for B.T. in the Quad Cities area but could not

identify where he searched on a map. His attire during the interview was also

significant, as he had changed part of his outfit for a third time. After leaving the

apartment with B.T. around 3:30 a.m., the gas station camera footage showed

Dinkins wearing a tank top, colorful shorts, and gold shoes. A few hours later he

appeared on camera at the Clinton Walmart wearing a different shirt, different pair

of shorts, but the same gold shoes. By the time he arrived at the police station, he

was wearing a different pair of shoes.

The investigation stalled until March 2021, when three men were fishing in

the pond near Kunau Implement and saw a skull. The men then observed what

appeared to be human remains and called 911. The remains were concealed

under last year’s leaves and branches—some of which appeared to have been

cleanly cut and deliberately placed. The body wore a 4XL white t-shirt, and

seashells were affixed to black dreadlocks, all of which matched what B.T. was

last seen wearing and Aishia’s description of B.T.’s hairstyle. DNA testing and

dental records confirmed it was B.T.’s body.
5

The cause of death was determined to be a homicide—B.T. had been shot

three times. Divers recovered a .38 caliber revolver in the pond, with six spent

casings; the type of gun capable of firing the rounds that killed B.T.

Dinkins was charged with first-degree murder and first-degree kidnapping.

After a nearly three-week bench trial, the court convicted Dinkins of both offenses.

He was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences. Dinkins now appeals,

disputing whether sufficient evidence supports either conviction.

II. Analysis.

Our sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard is well established. Reviewing for

legal error, we will affirm the verdict “if it is supported by substantial evidence.”

State v. Kieffer, 17 N.W.3d 651, 655 (Iowa 2025). Substantial evidence is that

which “is sufficient to convince a rational fact finder the defendant is guilty beyond

a reasonable doubt.” Id. (cleaned up). Across our “highly deferential” review, we

will “draw all legitimate inferences and presumptions that may fairly and reasonably

be deduced from the record in favor of the State.” State v. Stendrup, 983 N.W.2d

231, 241 (Iowa 2022).

To convict Dinkins of first-degree murder, the State needed to prove beyond

a reasonable doubt Dinkins “willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation” killed

B.T. See Iowa Code § 707.2(1)(a) (2020). For first-degree kidnapping, the State

needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Dinkins confined or removed B.T.

from one place to another, without authority or consent, with the intent to inflict

serious injury, and as a result of the kidnapping B.T. suffered serious injury. Id.

§§ 710.1(3), 710.2(1). Both Dinkins and the State analyze the evidence supporting

the two convictions together, and we follow their approach.
6

Dinkins argues the State failed to prove that Dinkins transported B.T. to the

pond and killed her. Specifically, he argues that B.T. was seen alive with Dinkins

3:30 a.m., but was not with Dinkins by 5:55 a.m., and the State did not prove

beyond a reasonable doubt what occurred during the hours in between. To that

end, Dinkins asserts the evidence linking him to the murder crosses the line from

circumstantial to speculative. He supports his position by asserting: no trace of

B.T.’s DNA was found on Dinkins or in any of his vehicles, no witness could confirm

bleach was used to cover up any traces of a crime, nothing was shown to tie

Dinkins to the murder weapon, no one witnessed Dinkins drive B.L. to the pond,

and D.L.’s shifting version of events was not sufficiently reliable to support the

convictions.

Under our deferential standard of review, we find sufficient evidence

supports Dinkins’s convictions. To begin, physical evidence and witness testimony

places him at the murder scene during the early morning of July 10. When

searching Dinkins’s Impala, officers obtained soil samples from the undercarriage

of the vehicle. An FBI minerology report matched three of the Impala samples to

soil from the dirt road near the pond. Beyond the matching soil, Brink’s testimony—

pulling Dinkins’s vehicle out of the ditch—similarly places Dinkins at the murder

scene that morning. While Dinkins downplays Brink’s testimony because he

struggled to remember certain details, Brink accurately recalled distinctive features

of Dinkins’s appearance and his sworn deposition testimony was accepted by the

district court as credible. Moreover, Dinkins’s movements that morning were

tracked by footage from various cameras and cell phone pings.
7

True, officers never traced the revolver back to Dinkins, but viewing all the

evidence together—the physical evidence, Brink’s and Andrea’s testimony, and

his confirmed movements leading up to the murder—the State proved Dinkins left

his apartment with B.T. early in the morning, was at the pond about one hour later,

never returned with B.T., and her remains were found concealed at the pond.

The State also offered evidence showing Dinkins tried to cover up his crime.

Dinkins lied to officers and Aishia when he reported waking up around 8:00 a.m.

and noticing B.T. was gone, and he never truthfully relayed his activities the

morning of the murder. Dinkins changed clothes after leaving the pond, and

despite executing search warrants at several residences, officers never found the

outfit Dinkins wore while he was with B.T. He also drove to a Walmart nearly one

hour away to buy bleach, forgoing a Walmart located close to the apartment where

he picked up D.L. Dinkins insists that no witness ever proved that bleach was used

to cover up traces of the crime, but D.L. testified to seeing Dinkins pour bleach by

some bushes near the pond and later use the bleach to clean a large knife back at

the motor home.

Dinkins downplays D.L.’s reliability with the details he told the investigators

and retold in his testimony. D.L. was eight years old during the first stage of the

criminal investigation and was eleven years old when he testified at trial. His

version of events indeed evolved over time, culminating in telling his mother after

B.T.’s remains were found that he was present when Dinkins shot B.T. However,

he was interviewed twice shortly after B.T.’s disappearance and witnessing the

shooting was not part of the information he revealed.
8

The district court carefully weighed D.L.’s testimony and police interviews.

It found D.L.’s claim of witnessing the shooting not credible, but it also stressed

that D.L. provided many other important details given shortly after the crime that

were corroborated by investigating officers. For instance, D.L.’s account of being

driven to a faraway Walmart and his father coming back with bleach was confirmed

by store surveillance footage and a sales receipt. D.L. also described being driven

to an area with woods and a hill that led down to water, which ultimately matched

the description of the pond where B.T.’s remains were found. There, he saw

Dinkins pour bleach by some bushes, where B.T.’s body was later found. D.L.

further testified to seeing his father clean a large knife with bleach—a significant

fact given that B.T.’s body was later found covered by cleanly cut branches,

indicating they were cut using some sort of knife. During the investigation, officers

located a machete in the home and testing revealed fibers on it, consistent with

being wiped off. On the whole, after hearing all the evidence and assessing D.L.

on the witness stand, the court found much of D.L.’s information credible. That is

precisely the kind of informed credibility calculus that we will not second-guess on

appeal. See State v. Laffey, 600 N.W.2d 57, 60 (Iowa 1999).

Weighing the evidence and, as we must, making all inferences in favor of

the State, we find substantial evidence supports the court’s findings that Dinkins

removed B.T. from the apartment, transported her to the pond, and killed her.

Thus, we affirm both convictions.

AFFIRMED.