State of Iowa v. Marvin Israel Ramos Bautista

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-0538
Filed April 1, 2026
_______________

State of Iowa,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Marvin Israel Ramos Bautista,
Defendant–Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County,
The Honorable Melissa Anderson-Seeber, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Britt Gagne of Gagne Law Office, Des Moines, attorney for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Joseph D. Ferrentino, Assistant
Attorney General, attorneys for appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Ahlers, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.
Opinion by Sandy, J.

1
SANDY, Judge.

Marvin Israel Ramos Bautista asks us to reverse his conviction based
on an alleged error he never raised at trial. Because we do not decide issues
the district court was never asked to decide, we affirm.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The State charged Marvin Israel Ramos Bautista by trial information
with sexual abuse in the second degree, in violation of Iowa Code
section 709.3(1)(b) (2023). The charge arose from allegations that on
November 18, 2023, Ramos Bautista engaged in a sex act on J.R., a child
under the age of twelve.

At the time of the abuse, J.R. was in the temporary custody of her aunt.
That evening, Ramos Bautista picked J.R. up for a visit. Later that night, J.R.
contacted her aunt in distress and asked to be picked up, reporting that
Ramos Bautista had touched her. After returning to her aunt’s care, J.R.
further disclosed that Ramos Bautista removed her clothing and engaged in
sexual intercourse with her despite her protests.

J.R. was taken for medical evaluation, where a sexual assault
examination was performed. Law enforcement initiated an investigation that
included a forensic interview and the collection of physical evidence.
Subsequent testing by the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation revealed
the presence of seminal fluid. DNA analysis identified Ramos Bautista as the
source, with an extremely low probability of the profile occurring in an
unrelated individual.

The State filed the trial information and original minutes of testimony
shortly thereafter. The district court appointed an interpreter for
Ramos Bautista. Throughout the entirety of the proceedings Ramos Bautista

2
was represented by counsel. Ramos Bautista later waived his right to a speedy
trial. The State subsequently filed additional minutes of testimony in July and
October 2024.

The case was set for a bench trial on November 4, 2024. On the
morning of trial, the State filed a set of additional minutes of testimony.
These materials included more specific identification of previously disclosed
medical witnesses and attached medical records.

Prior to trial commencing, Ramos Bautista waived his right to a jury
trial and agreed to proceed by trial on the minutes of testimony. During the
colloquy, the district court confirmed that Ramos Bautista understood the
nature of the proceeding and that the court would consider the minutes and
additional minutes of testimony in the record. The State referenced the
additional minutes filed that morning, and the court acknowledged their
receipt. Ramos Bautista did not object.

The matter was submitted to the court on the minutes. In a written
ruling filed January 9, 2025, the district court stated that it considered the
original minutes and all additional minutes of testimony, including those filed
on the trial date, in reaching its decision. The court found Ramos Bautista
guilty as charged.

The court later imposed a sentence not to exceed twenty-five years
imprisonment, subject to a mandatory minimum term. Ramos Bautista
appeals, arguing he was convicted based on evidence filed hours before trial,
without a meaningful opportunity to review it, in violation of rule-based
notice requirements and due process.1

1
Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.19(2)(a) (“The prosecuting attorney shall not be
permitted to introduce any witness whose minutes of testimony were not

3
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review for rulings on questions of statutory
interpretation is for correction of errors at law. State v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 889
N.W.2d 467, 470 (Iowa 2017). Review of constitutional claims is de novo.
State v. Formaro, 773 N.W.2d 834, 838 (Iowa 2009).

DISCUSSION

We begin and end with error preservation. “It is a fundamental
doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and
decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.” Meier v.
Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002). “Litigants may not raise issues—
including constitutional issues—for the first time in an appeal.” State v.
McClain, 20 N.W.3d 488, 495–96 (Iowa 2025) (quoting State v. Tucker, 982
N.W.2d 645, 653 (Iowa 2022)).

Ramos Bautista contends the district court erred in considering
additional minutes of testimony filed on the morning of trial, asserting both
a violation of the rules of criminal procedure and a deprivation of due
process. But the record does not show that Ramos Bautista raised any
objection on these grounds to the district court.

To the contrary, during the colloquy, the district court expressly
confirmed that it would consider the minutes and additional minutes of
testimony. The State specifically referenced the additional minutes filed that
morning. When asked, Ramos Bautista agreed the court could consider the

filed at least 10 days before the commencement of trial . . . .”); see U.S. Const.
amend. VI; Iowa Const. art. I, § 9.

4
minutes and additional minutes of testimony and voiced no objection. Nor
did Ramos Bautista request a continuance, seek exclusion of the late-filed
materials, or otherwise alert the court to any concern related to timing,
review, or ability to prepare.

Under these circumstances, error was not preserved. Our error-
preservation rules do not permit “a party to choose to remain silent in the
trial court in the face of error, take a chance on a favorable outcome, and
subsequently assert error on appeal if the outcome in the trial court is
unfavorable.” State v. Crawford, 972 N.W.2d 189, 199 (Iowa 2022) (quoting
State v. Ambrose, 861 N.W.2d 550, 555 (Iowa 2015)). Because Ramos Bautista
failed to preserve error on his rule-based and constitutional claims, we do not
reach the merits.

AFFIRMED.

5