remand instruction in Iowa

2015Many courts have indicated that to show an adverse effect, the defendant must “identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that defense counsel might have pursued, show that the alternative strategy was objectively reasonable under the facts of the case, and establish that the defense counsel’s failure to pursue that strategy or tactic was linked to the actual conflict.” Noe v. United States, 601 F.3d 784, 790 (8th Cir.2010) (quoting Winfield v. Roper, 460 F.3d 1026, 1039 (8th Cir.2006)); accord Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892, 908 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Feyrer, 333 F.3d

2015Many courts have indicated that to show an adverse effect, the defendant must “identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that defense counsel might have pursued, show that the alternative strategy was objectively reasonable under the facts of the case, and establish that the defense counsel’s failure to pursue that strategy or tactic was linked to the actual conflict.” 14 Noe v. United States, 601 F.3d 784, 790 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Winfield v. Roper, 460 F.3d 1026, 1039 (8th Cir. 2006)); accord Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892, 908 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Feyrer, 33

2015Many courts have indicated that to show an adverse effect, the defendant must “identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that defense counsel might have pursued, show that the alternative strategy was objectively reasonable under the facts of the case, and establish that the defense counsel’s failure to pursue that strategy or tactic was linked to the actual conflict.” Noe v. United States, 601 F.3d 784, 790 (8th Cir.2010) (quoting Winfield v. Roper, 460 F.3d 1026, 1039 (8th Cir.2006)); accord Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892, 908 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Feyrer, 333 F.3d

2015Many courts have indicated that to show an adverse effect, the defendant must “identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that defense counsel might have pursued, show that the alternative strategy was objectively reasonable under the facts of the case, and establish that the defense counsel’s failure to pursue that strategy or tactic was linked to the actual conflict.” 14 Noe v. United States, 601 F.3d 784, 790 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Winfield v. Roper, 460 F.3d 1026, 1039 (8th Cir. 2006)); accord Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892, 908 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Feyrer, 33

2015Many courts have indicated that to show an adverse effect, the defendant must “identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that defense counsel might have pursued, show that the alternative strategy was objectively reasonable under the facts of the case, and establish that the defense counsel’s failure to pursue that strategy or tactic was linked to the actual conflict.” Noe v. United States, 601 F.3d 784, 790 (8th Cir.2010) (quoting Winfield v. Roper, 460 F.3d 1026, 1039 (8th Cir.2006)); accord Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892, 908 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Feyrer, 333 F.3d

2015Many courts have indicated that to show an adverse effect, the defendant must “identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that defense counsel might have pursued, show that the alternative strategy was objectively reasonable under the facts of the case, and establish that the defense counsel’s failure to pursue that strategy or tactic was linked to the actual conflict.” 14 Noe v. United States, 601 F.3d 784, 790 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Winfield v. Roper, 460 F.3d 1026, 1039 (8th Cir. 2006)); accord Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892, 908 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Feyrer, 33

2015Many courts have indicated that to show an adverse effect, the defendant must “identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that defense counsel might have pursued, show that the alternative strategy was objectively reasonable under the facts of the case, and establish that the defense counsel’s failure to pursue that strategy or tactic was linked to the actual conflict.” Noe v. United States, 601 F.3d 784, 790 (8th Cir.2010) (quoting Winfield v. Roper, 460 F.3d 1026, 1039 (8th Cir.2006)); accord Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892, 908 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Feyrer, 333 F.3d

2015Many courts have indicated that to show an adverse effect, the defendant must “identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that defense counsel might have pursued, show that the alternative strategy was objectively reasonable under the facts of the case, and establish that the defense counsel’s failure to pursue that strategy or tactic was linked to the actual conflict.” 14 Noe v. United States, 601 F.3d 784, 790 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Winfield v. Roper, 460 F.3d 1026, 1039 (8th Cir. 2006)); accord Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892, 908 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Feyrer, 33

2015Many courts have indicated that to show an adverse effect, the defendant must “identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that defense counsel might have pursued, show that the alternative strategy was objectively reasonable under the facts of the case, and establish that the defense counsel’s failure to pursue that strategy or tactic was linked to the actual conflict.” Noe v. United States, 601 F.3d 784, 790 (8th Cir.2010) (quoting Winfield v. Roper, 460 F.3d 1026, 1039 (8th Cir.2006)); accord Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892, 908 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Feyrer, 333 F.3d

2015Many courts have indicated that to show an adverse effect, the defendant must “identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that defense counsel might have pursued, show that the alternative strategy was objectively reasonable under the facts of the case, and establish that the defense counsel’s failure to pursue that strategy or tactic was linked to the actual conflict.” 14 Noe v. United States, 601 F.3d 784, 790 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Winfield v. Roper, 460 F.3d 1026, 1039 (8th Cir. 2006)); accord Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892, 908 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Feyrer, 33

2015Id. at 171 , 122 S.Ct. at 1243 , 152 L.Ed.2d at 304 (clarifying the confusion over Wood’s interpretation by stating that “[a]s [it is] used in the remand instruction [in Wood ], however, we think ‘an actual conflict of interest’ meant precisely a conflict that affected counsel’s ‘performance — as opposed to a mere theoretical division of loyalties”).

2015Id. at 171 , 122 S.Ct. at 1243 , 152 L.Ed.2d at 304 (clarifying the confusion over Wood’s interpretation by stating that “[a]s [it is] used in the remand instruction [in Wood ], however, we think ‘an actual conflict of interest’ meant precisely a conflict that affected counsel’s ‘performance — as opposed to a mere theoretical division of loyalties”).

2024See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002) (“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.”).

2023While D.T. faults his attorney for not investigating other suspects, the child said the friends who were with him that evening did not “participate in the lighting of the fire.” As a result, D.T.’s attorney testified at the remand hearing that he did not think it was “necessary to talk to other individuals since he stated himself he was the one who lit the fire.” See Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134, 145 (Iowa 2001) (“There is no need to investigate a particular matter . . . if the defendant has given counsel a reason to believe the investigation would be fruitless or unwarranted.”).

2019We may “uphold a district court ruling on a ground other than the one upon which the district court relied provided the ground was urged in that court.” King v. State, 818 N.W.2d 1, 10 (Iowa 2012) (quoting Martinek v. Belmond-Klemme Cmty. Sch.

2016See In re Marriage of Davis, 608 N.W.2d 766, 769 (Iowa 2000) (“What is contemplated in the appellate opinion by necessary implication may be considered equivalent to that clearly and expressly stated in the appellate opinion.”).

2016See generally Chartier v. State, 223 N.W.2d 255, 256 (Iowa 1974) (finding district court erred in not appointing counsel when legal assistance would have been beneficial to pro se applicant and “could have been conducive to a more complete record”).

2015Many courts have indicated that to show an adverse effect, the defendant must “identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that defense counsel might have pursued, show that the alternative strategy was objectively reasonable under the facts of the case, and establish that the defense counsel’s failure to pursue that strategy or tactic was linked to the actual conflict.” Noe v. United States, 601 F.3d 784, 790 (8th Cir.2010) (quoting Winfield v. Roper, 460 F.3d 1026, 1039 (8th Cir.2006)); accord Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892, 908 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Feyrer, 333 F.3d

2015Many courts have indicated that to show an adverse effect, the defendant must “identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that defense counsel might have pursued, show that the alternative strategy was objectively reasonable under the facts of the case, and establish that the defense counsel’s failure to pursue that strategy or tactic was linked to the actual conflict.” Noe v. United States, 601 F.3d 784, 790 (8th Cir.2010) (quoting Winfield v. Roper, 460 F.3d 1026, 1039 (8th Cir.2006)); accord Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892, 908 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Feyrer, 333 F.3d

2015Before the district court held the remand hearing ordered for Means, the Iowa Supreme Court also decided State v. Lyle, where the seventeen-year-old offender challenged his second-degree robbery sentence of ten years with a mandatory minimum of seven years, claiming “mandatory minimums cannot be constitutionally applied to juveniles.” 854 N.W.2d 378, 381, 386 (Iowa 2014).

2015Many courts have indicated that to show an adverse effect, the defendant must “identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that defense counsel might have pursued, show that the alternative strategy was objectively reasonable under the facts of the case, and establish that the defense counsel’s failure to pursue that strategy or tactic was linked to the actual conflict.” Noe v. United States, 601 F.3d 784, 790 (8th Cir.2010) (quoting Winfield v. Roper, 460 F.3d 1026, 1039 (8th Cir.2006)); accord Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892, 908 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Feyrer, 333 F.3d

2015Many courts have indicated that to show an adverse effect, the defendant must “identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that defense counsel might have pursued, show that the alternative strategy was objectively reasonable under the facts of the case, and establish that the defense counsel’s failure to pursue that strategy or tactic was linked to the actual conflict.” Noe v. United States, 601 F.3d 784, 790 (8th Cir.2010) (quoting Winfield v. Roper, 460 F.3d 1026, 1039 (8th Cir.2006)); accord Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892, 908 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Feyrer, 333 F.3d

2015Many courts have indicated that to show an adverse effect, the defendant must “identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that defense counsel might have pursued, show that the alternative strategy was objectively reasonable under the facts of the case, and establish that the defense counsel’s failure to pursue that strategy or tactic was linked to the actual conflict.” Noe v. United States, 601 F.3d 784, 790 (8th Cir.2010) (quoting Winfield v. Roper, 460 F.3d 1026, 1039 (8th Cir.2006)); accord Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892, 908 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Feyrer, 333 F.3d

2015Many courts have indicated that to show an adverse effect, the defendant must “identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that defense counsel might have pursued, show that the alternative strategy was objectively reasonable under the facts of the case, and establish that the defense counsel’s failure to pursue that strategy or tactic was linked to the actual conflict.” Noe v. United States, 601 F.3d 784, 790 (8th Cir.2010) (quoting Winfield v. Roper, 460 F.3d 1026, 1039 (8th Cir.2006)); accord Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892, 908 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Feyrer, 333 F.3d

2015Many courts have indicated that to show an adverse effect, the defendant must “identify a plausible alternative defense strategy or tactic that defense counsel might have pursued, show that the alternative strategy was objectively reasonable under the facts of the case, and establish that the defense counsel’s failure to pursue that strategy or tactic was linked to the actual conflict.” Noe v. United States, 601 F.3d 784, 790 (8th Cir.2010) (quoting Winfield v. Roper, 460 F.3d 1026, 1039 (8th Cir.2006)); accord Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892, 908 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Feyrer, 333 F.3d

2012In State v. Seering, 701 N.W.2d 655, 660-61 (Iowa 2005), we declined to reach several constitutional arguments that were presented to and not ruled upon by the district court, and that were also not presented to us.

2012In State v. Seering, 701 N.W.2d 655 , 660–61 (Iowa 2005), we declined to reach several constitutional arguments that were presented to and not ruled upon by the district court, and that were also not presented to us.

2004See id. at 238 (“If the record on appeal shows only the possibility of a conflict, then the case *242 must be remanded for a determination as to whether an actual conflict existed and/or whether the defendant made a valid waiver of his right to independent counsel.”); Wayne R.

1987See Boschetti, 794 F.2d at 418 ; United States v. Auten, 632 F.2d 478, 480 (5th Cir.1980) (mere concluso-ry assertions that government used perjured testimony not sufficient to require evidentiary hearing); cf. Wright § 254, at 66-67 (discovery under federal evidence rule).

1987See Boschetti, 794 F.2d at 418 ; United States v. Auten, 632 F.2d 478, 480 (5th Cir.1980) (mere concluso-ry assertions that government used perjured testimony not sufficient to require evidentiary hearing); cf. Wright § 254, at 66-67 (discovery under federal evidence rule).

1981See State v. Johnson, 298 N.W.2d 293, 294 (Iowa 1980).

1980See State v. Johnson, 272 N.W.2d 480 (1978).