potential viability claim in Iowa

2020See State v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192, 198 (Iowa 2010) (“If . . . the court determines the claim cannot be addressed on appeal, the court must preserve it for a postconviction-relief proceeding, regardless of the court’s view of the potential viability of the claim.”).

2020See State v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192, 198 (Iowa 2010) (stating that if a defendant wishes to have an ineffective-assistance claim resolved on direct appeal but the record is inadequate, “the court must preserve it for a postconviction-relief proceeding, regardless of the court’s view of the potential viability of the claim”).

2010Notwithstanding legislative abrogation of the preservation requirement as it applied to direct appeals, we stated in a 2007 decision that “[c]laims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal are preserved for postconviction relief only if the defendant makes a minimal showing of the potential viability of the claim.” State v. Alloway, 707 N.W.2d 582, 587 (Iowa 2006) *198 (emphasis added) (citing Wagner, 410 N.W.2d at 215 ).

2010Notwithstanding legislative abrogation of the preservation requirement as it applied to direct appeals, we stated in a 2007 decision that “[c]laims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal are preserved for postconviction relief only if the defendant makes a minimal 11 showing of the potential viability of the claim.” State v. Alloway, 707 N.W.2d 582, 587 (Iowa 2006) (emphasis added) (citing Wagner, 410 N.W.2d at 215 ).

2020We preserve them for further proceedings.5 See State v. Harris, 919 N.W.2d 753, 754 (Iowa 2018) (“If the development of the ineffective-assistance claim in the appellate brief was insufficient to allow its consideration, the court of appeals should not consider the claim, but should not outright reject it.”); State v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192, 198 (Iowa 2010) (“If . . . the court determines the claim cannot be addressed 5These claims include Trujillo’s arguments that each of his pleas failed to comply with Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.8, were not voluntary, and violated his due process rig

2019See State v. Harris, 919 N.W.2d 753, 754 (Iowa 2018) (stating our court should preserve an ineffective-assistance claim, “[i]f the development of the ineffective-assistance claim in the appellate brief was insufficient to allow its consideration”); see also State v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192 , 196–97 (Iowa 2010) (finding when there is an underdeveloped ineffective- assistance claim, “the court must preserve it for a postconviction-relief proceeding, regardless of the court’s view of the potential viability of the claim”).

2018State v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192, 198 (Iowa 2010); see also State v. Tate, 710 N.W.2d 237, 240 (Iowa 2006) (“Only in rare cases will the trial record alone be sufficient to resolve the [ineffective-assistance] claim on direct appeal.”); State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128, 138 (Iowa 2006) (“[M]ost claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in the context of a guilty plea will require a record more substantial than the one now before us.”).

2018See id. (“If . . . the court determines the claim cannot be addressed 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.”); see also State v. Tate, 710 N.W.2d 237, 240 (Iowa 2006) (“Ordinarily, we do not decide ineffective-assistance-of-counsel-claims on direct appeal.

2010Notwithstanding legislative abrogation of the preservation requirement as it applied to direct appeals, we stated in a 2007 decision that “[c]laims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal are preserved for postconviction relief only if the defendant makes a minimal showing of the potential viability of the claim.” State v. Alloway, 707 N.W.2d 582, 587 (Iowa 2006) *198 (emphasis added) (citing Wagner, 410 N.W.2d at 215 ).

2010Notwithstanding legislative abrogation of the preservation requirement as it applied to direct appeals, we stated in a 2007 decision that “[c]laims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal are preserved for postconviction relief only if the defendant makes a minimal 11 showing of the potential viability of the claim.” State v. Alloway, 707 N.W.2d 582, 587 (Iowa 2006) (emphasis added) (citing Wagner, 410 N.W.2d at 215 ).

2019See Nguyen v. State, 878 N.W.2d 744, 750 (Iowa 2016). 3 motion in arrest of judgment to take back a plea that could be deemed unknowing or involuntary.” He requests us to preserve his right to obtain postconviction relief “[i]f this court believes the record is insufficient for a finding of ineffectiveness.” See State v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192, 198 (Iowa 2010) (court may resolve claim on appeal if the record is adequate but if the court determines the claim cannot be addressed on appeal, the court must preserve it for a postconviction-relief proceeding, regardless of the court’s view of the p

2018See id. (“If . . . the court determines the claim cannot be addressed 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.”); see also State v. Tate, 710 N.W.2d 237, 240 (Iowa 2006) (“Ordinarily, we do not decide ineffective-assistance-of-counsel-claims on direct appeal.

2018We prefer to reserve such questions for postconviction proceedings so the defendant’s trial counsel can defend against the charge.” (citation omitted)); State v. Keys, No. 15- 1991, 2017 WL 1735617, at *9 (Iowa Ct. App. May 3, 2017) (citing Clay, 824 N.W.2d at 494 ) (preserving defendant’s multiple claims of ineffective assistance where the lack of record prevented the court from resolving a number of claims on direct appeal in order to properly evaluate the cumulative prejudicial effect).

2018State v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192, 198 (Iowa 2010); see also State v. Tate, 710 N.W.2d 237, 240 (Iowa 2006) (“Only in rare cases will the trial record alone be sufficient to resolve the [ineffective-assistance] claim on direct appeal.”); State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128, 138 (Iowa 2006) (“[M]ost claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in the context of a guilty plea will require a record more substantial than the one now before us.”).

2018State v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192, 197-98 (Iowa 2010) (noting claims of ineffective 1 After the State pointed out this failure in its appellate brief, Lizarde claimed in his reply brief, “one can assume there was a reasonable probability that Lizarde would have chosen to go to trial rather than be sentenced to prison time.” “We have long held that an issue cannot properly be asserted for the first time in a reply brief.” State v. Walker, 574 N.W.2d 280, 288 (Iowa 1998). 5 assistance may be preserved even though the defendant has not demonstrated the potential viability of the claim, including w