Johnson claim in Iowa

2023Racing Ass’n, 721 N.W.2d 762, 768 (Iowa 2006)). 1.

2023Racing Ass’n, 721 N.W.2d 762, 768 (Iowa 2006)). 1.

2014However, the State argues, because Johnson’s claim is presented within the context of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, under Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , the burden remains with Johnson to show, but for counsel’s breach of duty in failing to object to the shackling, there is a reasonable probability the outcome of the trial would have been different.

2014However, the State argues, because Johnson’s claim is presented within the context of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, under Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , the burden remains with Johnson to show, but for counsel’s breach of duty in failing to object to the shackling, there is a reasonable probability the outcome of the trial would have been different.

2024See Lamasters, 821 N.W.2d at 866 (citation omitted).

2020See State v. Halliburton, 539 N.W.2d 339, 344 (Iowa 1995).

2020Ineffective Assistance of Counsel “In order to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, an applicant must prove: (1) counsel failed to perform an essential duty; and (2) prejudice resulted.” State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185, 195 (Iowa 2008) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)).

2020However, when the applicant asserts claims of a constitutional nature, our review is de novo. 2 In the PCR ruling, the district court referenced Johnson’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to challenge the lack of corroboration of the Gonzalez phone call. 7 Thus, we review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo.” Ledzema v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134, 141 (Iowa 2001) (citations omitted).

2020However, the record shows the court partially addressed his claim in the context that trial counsel failed to challenge a lack of corroboration of Gonzalez’s testimony involving phone calls.2 When ruling on a PCR application, district courts are required to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law on every issue, but “[e]ven if the court does not respond to all of the applicant’s allegations, the ruling is sufficient if it responds to all the issues raised.” Gamble v. State, 723 N.W.2d 443, 446 (Iowa 2006).

2020See Anfinson v. State, 758 N.W.2d 496 , 502 n.6 (Iowa 2008). 3 During an eight-day jury trial, the two defense attorneys called twenty-five witnesses, including twelve doctors, to support Johnson’s defense. 3 Q.

2018See Smith v. Fairview Ridges Hosp., 625 F.3d 1076, 1088 (8th Cir. 2010) (finding one month between protected activity and adverse employment action is not close enough to support a finding of causation without something more). 18 Finding no error in the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of MHI and the resulting dismissal of Johnson’s claim, we affirm.

2018State v. Brothern, 832 N.W.2d 187, 193-94 (Iowa 2013).

2017Analysis Through the rubric of ineffective assistance of counsel, Johnson raises five challenges to the jury instructions given at trial: (1) the jury should have been instructed on the lesser-included offense of simple assault; (2) a limiting instruction should have been given on the use of impeachment evidence; (3) the instructions did not contain all the necessary elements required to disprove Johnson’s claim of justification; (4) the instructions failed to convey the State’s burden of proof regarding specific intent; and (5) a cautionary instruction should instruct on a lesser-included off

2016See State v. Sanford, 814 N.W.2d 611, 615 (Iowa 2012).

2016“We review sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion or defect in the sentencing procedure.” State v. Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Iowa 2015). 1 At the plea hearing, Johnson was informed by the court that the court was not bound by Johnson’s plea agreement with the State. 3 “An abuse of discretion will only be found when a court acts on grounds clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” Id. (quoting State v. Leckington, 713 N.W.2d 208, 216 (Iowa 2006)).

2016“We give sentencing decisions by a trial court a strong presumption in their favor.” Id.

2016“We review sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion or defect in the sentencing procedure.” State v. Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Iowa 2015). 1 At the plea hearing, Johnson was informed by the court that the court was not bound by Johnson’s plea agreement with the State. 3 “An abuse of discretion will only be found when a court acts on grounds clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” Id. (quoting State v. Leckington, 713 N.W.2d 208, 216 (Iowa 2006)).

2016“We review sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion or defect in the sentencing procedure.” State v. Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Iowa 2015). 1 At the plea hearing, Johnson was informed by the court that the court was not bound by Johnson’s plea agreement with the State. 3 “An abuse of discretion will only be found when a court acts on grounds clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” Id. (quoting State v. Leckington, 713 N.W.2d 208, 216 (Iowa 2006)).

2016See State v. Seats, 865 N.W.2d 545, 553 (Iowa 2015) (stating review is for correction of errors at law when the legality of a sentence is challenged on nonconstitutional grounds).

2015Ennenga v. State, 812 N.W.2d 696, 701 (Iowa 2012).

2014See also United States v. Schuster, 769 F.2d 337, 343 (6th Cir. 1985) (rejecting defense assertion that a State objection was necessary to invoke the Johnson exception and stating “Johnson does not emphasize the prosecution’s opposition to the plea, but the lack of a final adjudication on the merits”); People v. Price, 867 N.E.2d 972, 977 (Ill.

2014See also United States v. Schuster, 769 F.2d 337, 343 (6th Cir. 1985) (rejecting defense assertion that a State objection was necessary to invoke the Johnson exception and stating “Johnson does not emphasize the prosecution’s opposition to the plea, but the lack of a final adjudication on the merits”); People v. Price, 867 N.E.2d 972, 977 (Ill.

2014See also United States v. Schuster, 769 F.2d 337, 343 (6th Cir. 1985) (rejecting defense assertion that a State objection was necessary to invoke the Johnson exception and stating “Johnson does not emphasize the prosecution’s opposition to the plea, but the lack of a final adjudication on the merits”); People v. Price, 867 N.E.2d 972, 977 (Ill.

2014See also United States v. Schuster, 769 F.2d 337, 343 (6th Cir. 1985) (rejecting defense assertion that a State objection was necessary to invoke the Johnson exception and stating “Johnson does not emphasize the prosecution’s opposition to the plea, but the lack of a final adjudication on the merits”); People v. Price, 867 N.E.2d 972, 977 (Ill.

2014See State v. Akright, 506 N.W.2d 465, 469 (Iowa Ct. 3 Johnson’s brief also raised a challenge to the factual basis supporting the “substantial harm” element but, at oral argument, Johnson’s appellate attorney stated she was not pursuing this challenge.