Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 25-1332 Filed October 7, 2026 _______________ State of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Paul John Kramer, Defendant–Appellant. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, The Honorable Mark T. Hostager, Judge. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Matthew L. Noel of Noel Law Office, Dubuque, attorney for appellant. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Zachary Miller, Assistant Attorney General, attorneys for appellee. _______________ Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Buller, JJ. Opinion by Schumacher, J. 1 SCHUMACHER, Judge. Paul Kramer appeals his conviction, following a bench trial, for driving while barred. He asserts the State failed to prove he was not driving his vehicle pursuant to a temporary restricted license. Upon our review, we affirm. I. Background Facts & Proceedings On May 22, 2024, law enforcement observed Kramer driving a multicolored truck and initiated a traffic stop. The officer who stopped Kramer recognized him from previous instances of driving while barred. Kramer was subsequently arrested and charged with driving while barred in violation of Iowa Code section 321.561 (2024). Kramer’s certified driving record showed that he was barred from driving at the time of his arrest, with a reinstatement date of March 2028. The record also reflected that for a period of time, Kramer had a temporary restricted license that was “[n]ot valid unless [a]ccompanied by Form 431009.” Kramer testified at trial that he believed the temporary restricted license was in place when he was arrested, and he was “on business that day.” Following a bench trial, Kramer was convicted as charged and sentenced to 180 days in jail, “consecutive to any other existing sentence(s).” Kramer appeals his conviction. II. Analysis Kramer argues the State failed to offer sufficient evidence that he was not operating his vehicle pursuant to a temporary restricted license. We review sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims for correction of errors at law. State v. Crawford, 972 N.W.2d 189, 202 (Iowa 2022). “Our sufficiency review is the 2 same for a bench trial as a jury trial. The court’s findings of fact have the effect of a special verdict—binding on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. We view the record in the light most favorable to the court’s decision.” State v. Wilde, 987 N.W.2d 486, 494 (Iowa Ct. App. 2022) (internal citations omitted). To convict an individual of driving while barred, the State must prove two elements: the individual “(1) was operating a motor vehicle (2) while [their] license was barred.” State v. Williams, 910 N.W.2d 586, 591 (Iowa 2018) (citation omitted); see Iowa Code § 321.561. Kramer asserts that to prove he was driving while barred as a habitual offender, the State needed to prove an additional element, specifically, that he was not driving under a temporary restricted license. Kramer relies on State v. Currie, an unpublished opinion from our court, wherein the district court fashioned a jury instruction that included a third element: “That the defendant was not operating the vehicle in compliance with the restrictions of a temporary restricted license.” No. 01-1917, 2003 WL 118371, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 15, 2003). The Currie court did not hold that a third element was required; it merely quoted the instruction given by the district court. See id. Here, the State proved the two elements required under section 321.561. The evidence shows Kramer was driving a truck on the date of the traffic stop, and an abstract of his driving record admitted at trial supports that Kramer was barred from driving until March 23, 2028, because of his habitual-offender status. There is no requirement under the statute to prove that Kramer was not driving under a valid temporary restricted license. See Williams, 910 N.W.2d at 593 (finding that “[m]ailing of notice is not an element of the crime. The crime consists of operating a vehicle during the 3 period of time the defendant was barred from driving as a habitual offender”). But even if the State was required to prove Kramer was not driving pursuant to a restricted license, the evidence reflects that such was not in effect at the time of his arrest. Kramer testified, “I made the mistake of driving that day not knowing, through my ignorance, that [the temporary restricted license] had been suspended or revoked.” Kramer’s certified driving abstract also indicated his restricted license was revoked, showing he had something “effected” starting March 5, 2024, that was “cancelled” on May 5, 2024, although the abstract failed to specify exactly what was issued. The abstract states the temporary restricted license is “[n]ot [v]alid unless [a]ccompanied by Form 431009.” There is no evidence in the record showing Kramer possessed such documentation when he was driving, nor that law enforcement found Form 431009 when arresting and searching Kramer. 1 Further, even if Kramer had been issued a temporary restricted license, the traffic stop occurred after the date such was no longer in effect. We find there was substantial evidence to convince the district court that Kramer is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of driving while barred as a habitual offender. See State v. Pierce, No. 23-1367, 2026 WL 221588, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2026) (“Evidence is substantial when a rational trier 1 Kramer suggests that “[t]here would be an argument to be made based on the language of §321.561 that a Defendant who is simply issued a temporary restricted license cannot be found guilty of violating that statute.” This argument is unsupported by any cited authority and is thereby waived. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(a)(8)(3) (“Failure to cite authority in support of an issue may be deemed waiver of that issue.”). 4 of fact could conceivably find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (cleaned up)). AFFIRMED. 5