ineffective assistance of counsel claim in Iowa

2025“To prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, the claimant must satisfy [a] two-prong test by proving that his trial counsel failed to perform an essential duty and prejudice resulted.” State v. Majors, 940 N.W.2d 372 , 391 4 (Iowa 2020) (applying the two-prong test for ineffective-assistance claims set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)).

2025If an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim fails on either prong, “it can be decided on that ground alone.” Id.

2021See Brown, 930 N.W.2d at 844 (“We normally preserve ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims for postconviction-relief proceedings.”); State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128, 138 (Iowa 2006) (“In only rare cases will the defendant be able to muster enough evidence to prove prejudice without a postconviction relief hearing.”); Manning v. State, 654 N.W.2d 555, 562 (Iowa 2002) (recognizing that when an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim is raised in postconviction proceedings “an evidentiary hearing on the merits is ordinarily required” (quoting Foster v. State, 395 N.W.2d 637, 638 (Iowa 1986))); W

2021See Brown, 930 N.W.2d at 844 (“We normally preserve ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims for postconviction-relief proceedings.”); State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128, 138 (Iowa 2006) (“In only rare cases will the defendant be able to muster enough evidence to prove prejudice without a postconviction relief hearing.”); Manning v. State, 654 N.W.2d 555, 562 (Iowa 2002) (recognizing that when an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim is raised in postconviction proceedings “an evidentiary hearing on the merits is ordinarily required” (quoting Foster v. State, 395 N.W.2d 637, 638 (Iowa 1986))); W

2026If an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim fails on either prong, “it can be decided on that ground alone.” Id.

2025If an ineffective-assistance- of-counsel claim fails on either prong, “it can be decided on that ground alone.” Ledezma, 626 N.W.2d at 142 .

2024Compare State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185, 196 (Iowa 2008) (“[W]hen there is no suggestion the instruction contradicts another instruction or misstates the law there cannot be a showing of prejudice for purposes of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.”), with State v. Leins, 234 N.W.2d 645, 648 (Iowa 1975) (reversing for new trial when trial court gave an instruction containing two tests, one proper and one improper, and the reviewing court was unable to determine which rule the jury applied).

2024When the improper “jury instruction does not give rise to a reasonable probability the outcome of the proceeding would have been different had counsel not erred, in the context of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, no prejudice results.” Id. at 197 .

2021Id. at 197 .2 That provision eliminated the obligation to raise an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on direct appeal to preserve it for postconviction relief.

2018See State v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192, 198 (Iowa 2010) (stating if there is not an adequate record to reach the merits of an ineffective-assistance-of- counsel claim on direct appeal, “the court must preserve it for a postconviction- relief proceeding, regardless of the court’s view of the potential viability of the claim”).

2022“To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the claimant must satisfy the two-prong test by proving that his trial counsel failed to perform an essential duty and prejudice resulted.” State v. Majors, 940 N.W.2d 372 , 391 (Iowa 2020) (quoting State v. Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488, 495 (Iowa 2012) (describing the two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel claims set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)).

2020That is certainly the case where, as here, the record does not permit us to say whether trial counsel’s “failure to object implicated trial tactics or strategy.” State v. Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488 , 500–01 (Iowa 2012); see also Caldwell v. State, 494 N.W.2d 213, 214 (Iowa 1992) (“Mere 3 We recognize Iowa Code section 814.7 (2019) was recently amended to provide in pertinent part: “An ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a criminal case shall be determined by filing an application for postconviction relief” and “shall not be decided on direct appeal from the criminal proceedings.” See 2019 Iow

2021See State v. Fountain, 786 N.W.2d 260 , 262–63 (Iowa 2010) (“Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are an exception to the traditional error-preservation rules.”); see also State v. Harris, 919 N.W.2d 753, 754 (Iowa 2018) (“When counsel fails to preserve error at trial, a defendant can have the matter reviewed as an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.”).

2017See State v. Fountain, 786 N.W.2d 260, 263 (Iowa 2010); see also State v. Brubaker, 805 N.W.2d 164, 170 (Iowa 2011) (“Failure of trial counsel to preserve error at trial can support an ineffective- assistance-of-counsel claim.”). 7 substantial evidence in the record to sustain it.

2025“We may affirm the district court’s rejection of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim if either element is lacking.” Anfinson v. State, 758 N.W.2d 496, 499 (Iowa 2008).

2024“We may affirm the district court’s rejection of an ineffective- assistance-of-counsel claim if either element is lacking.” Anfinson v. State, 758 N.W.2d 496, 499 (Iowa 2008).

2019“When counsel fails to preserve error at trial, we can reach an ineffective-assistance-of- counsel claim on a direct appeal if the record is sufficient to reach it.” Gordon, 921 N.W.2d at 24 (citing State v. Brubaker, 805 N.W.2d 164, 170 (Iowa 2011)).

2018Ineffective Assistance of Counsel He asserts his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to preserve error by failing to specifically challenge the sufficiency of the evidence of physical helplessness in the motion for judgment of acquittal.5 “Failure of trial counsel to preserve error at trial can support an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.” Brubaker, 805 N.W.2d at 170 .

2020State v. Thorndike, 860 N.W.2d 316, 319 (Iowa 2015).2 1 We recognize section 814.7 was recently amended to provide in pertinent part: “An ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a criminal case shall be determined by filing an application for postconviction relief” and “shall not be decided on direct appeal from the criminal proceedings.” See 2019 Iowa Acts ch. 140, § 31.

2019See State v. Thorndike, 860 N.W.2d 316, 319 (Iowa 2015) (“In a criminal case, an ineffective- assistance-of-counsel claim ‘need not be raised on direct appeal from the criminal proceedings in order to preserve the claim for postconviction relief purposes.’” (quoting Iowa Code § 814.7 (1))); State v. Ondayog, 722 N.W.2d 778, 784 (Iowa 2006) (“Ineffective- assistance-of-counsel claims are not bound by traditional error-preservation rules.”). 8 B.

2024“We may affirm the district court’s rejection of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim if either element is lacking.” Lamasters, 821 N.W.2d at 866 (citation omitted). “[W]e scrutinize each claim in light of the totality of the circumstances.

2024“We 6 may affirm the district court’s rejection of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim if either element is lacking.” Lamasters, 821 N.W.2d at 866 (citation omitted).

2021See State v. Krogmann, 804 N.W.2d 518, 526 (Iowa 2011) (concluding defendant failed to preserve claim of prosecutorial misconduct because, while he objected at the time, “[h]e objected only that the question was argumentative” and “asked for no further relief such as a mistrial”), see also State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860, 868 (Iowa 2003) (“Because objection was not made at trial, Graves’ claim of prosecutorial misconduct is raised on appeal in the context of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.”).

2017See Schlitter, N.W2d at 394. (stating the multifactor test set out to evaluate the statements in determining if there was misconduct and if that was misconduct was prejudicial “easily translate to an evaluation of prosecutorial error”). 14 argues defense counsel failed to request a limiting instruction after the State asked the jury to “send a message that you can’t kill someone like this.”9 To succeed on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must establish: (1) proof of misconduct; and (2) “the misconduct resulted in prejudice to such an ext

2020“To establish prejudice in the context of an ineffective-assistance-of- counsel claim, a defendant must show a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different . . . . [That] the probability of a different result is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Kuhse, 937 N.W.2d at 628 (quoting State v. Ambrose, 861 N.W.2d 550, 557 (Iowa 2015)).

2020“To the extent error is not preserved on an issue, any objections must be raised within an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel framework.” State v. Ambrose, 861 N.W.2d 550, 555 (Iowa 2015).

2020To prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, a defendant “must show by a preponderance of the evidence that his trial counsel failed to perform an essential duty and prejudice resulted.” State v. Ondayogi, 722 N.W.2d 778, 784 (Iowa 2006).

2019See State v. Thorndike, 860 N.W.2d 316, 319 (Iowa 2015) (“In a criminal case, an ineffective- assistance-of-counsel claim ‘need not be raised on direct appeal from the criminal proceedings in order to preserve the claim for postconviction relief purposes.’” (quoting Iowa Code § 814.7 (1))); State v. Ondayog, 722 N.W.2d 778, 784 (Iowa 2006) (“Ineffective- assistance-of-counsel claims are not bound by traditional error-preservation rules.”). 8 B.

2016Ennenga v. State, 812 N.W.2d 696, 701 (Iowa 2012).

2016Ennenga v. State, 812 N.W.2d 696, 701 (Iowa 2012).

2025See Dempsey, 860 N.W.2d at 873 (looking to the timing of the assertion of the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim to assess whether counsel’s conduct was actually the cause of the guilty-plea decision).

2016Under the prejudice prong of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, Jentz must prove “a reasonable probability that, but for the counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. (citation omitted).

2023“Failure to prove either prong . . . results in failure of the defendant’s ineffective- assistance-of-counsel claim.” State v. Dalton, 674 N.W.2d 111, 119 (Iowa 2004).

2022See Dalton, 674 N.W.2d at 119 (“Failure to prove either prong of the Strickland test results in failure of the defendant's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.”). 6.

2021See State v. Fountain, 786 N.W.2d 260 , 262–63 (Iowa 2010) (“Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are an exception to the traditional error-preservation rules.”); see also State v. Harris, 919 N.W.2d 753, 754 (Iowa 2018) (“When counsel fails to preserve error at trial, a defendant can have the matter reviewed as an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.”).

2021“We can reach an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on a direct appeal if the record is sufficient to reach it.”6 State v. Harris, 919 N.W.2d 753, 754 (Iowa 2018). 5 While Robinson was not required to raise these issues under a claim of ineffective assistance, see State v. Lucas, 323 N.W.2d 228, 232 (Iowa 1982), he chose to bring them that way, and our review is informed by the claims he actually raised on appeal. 6 Disposition was entered against Robinson in June 2019, before Iowa Code section 814.7 (Supp. 2019) took effect.

2024See State v. McNeal, 897 N.W.2d 697, 703 (Iowa 2017) (noting we “may consider either the prejudice prong or breach of duty first, and failure to find either one will preclude relief”); Walden v. State, No. 23-1104, 2024 WL 4220588 , at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2024) (“[T]he court also found no breach of duty on Walden’s first three claims, which Walden does not challenge and would therefore preclude relief on those claims.”); see also State v. Cook, 565 N.W.2d 611, 615 (Iowa 1997) (“[T]rial counsel did not breach an essential duty, thus we need not address the prejudice prong of the ineffec

2014See State v. Williams, 565 N.W.2d 611, 614 (Iowa 1997) (“We may dispose of an ineffective-assistance-of- counsel claim if [the defendant] fails to meet either the breach of duty or the prejudice prong.”).

2015State v. Utter, 803 N.W.2d 647, 651 (Iowa 2011); see also Iowa Code § 814.7 (3) (“If an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is raised on direct appeal from the criminal proceedings, the court may decide the record is adequate to decide the claim or may choose to preserve the claim for determination under chapter 822.”) “Only in rare cases will the trial record alone be sufficient to resolve the claim on direct appeal.” State v. Tate, 710 N.W .2d 237, 240 (Iowa 2006).

2015Iowa Code § 814.7 (3) (“If an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is raised on direct appeal from the criminal proceedings, the court may decide the record is adequate to decide the claim or may choose to preserve the claim for determination under chapter 822.”); State 4 v. Utter, 803 N.W.2d 647, 651 (Iowa 2011).

2014See State v. Tate, 710 N.W.2d 237, 241 (Iowa 2006) (finding the record inadequate to address the defendant’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on direct appeal).

2014See State v. Tate, 710 N.W.2d 237, 241 (Iowa 2006) (finding the record inadequate to address the defendant’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on direct appeal).

2021State v. Tompkins, 859 N.W.2d 631, 637 (Iowa 2015).

2016See State v. Tompkins, 859 N.W.2d 631, 637 (Iowa 2015) (providing, to prove an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, an appellant must show counsel failed to perform an essential duty and prejudice resulted).

2018"In a criminal case, an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim 'need not be raised on direct appeal from the criminal proceedings in order to preserve the claim for postconviction relief purposes.' " Everett v. State , 789 N.W.2d 151 , 156 (Iowa 2010) (quoting Iowa Code § 814.7 (1) ).

2018“In a criminal case, an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim ‘need not be raised on direct appeal from the criminal proceedings in order to preserve the claim for 5 postconviction relief purposes.’” Everett, 789 N.W.2d at 156 (quoting Iowa Code § 814.7 (1)).

2015“Failure to prove either element is fatal to an ineffective- assistance-of-counsel claim.” State v. Doggett, 687 N.W.2d 97, 100 (Iowa 2004).

2010We have taken the case on further review to consider Oberhart’s argument that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to move to suppress incriminating statements Oberhart made to law enforcement officers. 1 See State v. Doggett, 687 N.W.2d 97, 99 (Iowa 2004) (declining to exercise discretion on further review to consider all issues raised on appeal, deciding instead to consider only the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim).

2021See State v. Truesdell, 679 N.W.2d 611 , 615–16 (Iowa 2004) (“The failure of trial counsel to preserve error at trial can support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. . . .

2020See id. at 615–16 (stating failure to preserve error at trial can support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim).

2026State v. Feregrino, 756 N.W.2d 700, 707 (Iowa 2008) (citing United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659 (1984)); see also Uranga v. State, No. 24-0196, 2025 WL 1324125 , at *8 (Iowa Ct. App. May 7, 2025) (Langholz, J., dissenting) (noting our supreme court uses “the term ‘structural error’ to describe when prejudice is presumed on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim because of the actual or constructive denial of counsel”).

2020State v. Feregrino, 756 N.W.2d 700, 703 (Iowa 2008). 1 Waigand raises some of his claims under an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel framework.

2023To establish an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, the applicant “must demonstrate ‘(1) his trial counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and (2) this failure resulted in prejudice.’” Lado v. State, 804 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Iowa 2011) (citation omitted).

2023To establish an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, an applicant “must demonstrate ‘(1) his trial counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and (2) this failure resulted in prejudice.’” Lado v. State, 804 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Iowa 2011) (citation omitted).

2025As detailed above, those cases—like Lado—rest on the proper application of the prejudice prong of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim for “a very narrow set of cases in which the accused has effectively been denied counsel altogether.” Weaver, 582 U.S. at 307–08 (Alito, J, concurring in the judgment).

2025First, “[w]hen a defendant fails to preserve a claim of structural error and instead raises the error in the context of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim,” as Miller did here, “the defendant must still establish constitutional prejudice.” Smith, 7 N.W.3d at 727; see also Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. 286, 299 (2017) (“[I]n the case of a structural error where there is an objection at trial and the issue 14 is raised on direct appeal, the defendant generally is entitled to ‘automatic reversal’ regardless of the error’s actual ‘effect on the outcome.’”).

2018Id.

2015Discussion. “[A]ll postconviction relief applicants who seek relief as a consequence of ineffective assistance of counsel must establish counsel breached a duty and prejudice resulted.” Castro v. State, 795 N.W.2d 789, 794 (Iowa 2011); see also 10 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). “‘We may affirm the district court’s rejection of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim if either element is lacking.’” Lamasters, 821 N.W.2d at 866 (citation omitted).

2008Feregrino also asserted an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, arguing that his jury-trial waiver did not meet the standards this court established in State v. Stallings, 658 N.W.2d 106, 111 (Iowa 2003).

2005Ineffective Assistance “[T]o succeed on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, a defendant *29 must prove each of the following two elements by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) trial counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and (2) this failure resulted in prejudice.” State v. Dalton, 674 N.W.2d 111, 119 (Iowa 2004) (citing State v. Stallings, 658 N.W.2d 106, 108-09 (Iowa 2003)).