ineffective assistance claim in Iowa

2020See Iowa Code § 814.7 (noting an ineffective-assistance claim “need not be raised on direct appeal from the criminal proceedings in order to preserve the claim for postconviction relief purposes”); State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128, 133 (Iowa 2006).

2019“The defendant may raise the ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal if he or she has reasonable grounds to believe the record is adequate to address the claim on direct appeal.” Id.

2021Moreover, section 814.7(3) clearly gives the appellate court only two choices when an ineffective-assistance claim is raised on direct appeal: (1) “decide the record is adequate to decide the claim,” or (2) “choose to preserve the claim for determination under chapter 822.” Id. at 198 .

2020State 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 it should not outright reject it.”); State v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192, 199 (Iowa 2010) (discussing Iowa Code § 814.7 (3)).2 We decline to speculate upon arguments that could have been made and then address their merits.

2025“The resulting prejudice element of an ineffective assistance claim is satisfied if a reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 784 (cleaned up).

2024A. Ineffective Assistance Claim. “[T]o succeed on an ineffective-assistance claim, a PCR applicant must establish that counsel breached a duty and prejudice resulted, and the claim fails if either element is lacking.” Lusk v. State, No. 18-1125, 2019 WL 1953461 , at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. May 1, 2019); see Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 .

2026See State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860 , 882-83 (Iowa 2003) (considering whether the effect of trial counsel’s claimed error was “pervasive or isolated and trivial” in examining the prejudice prong of an ineffective-assistance claim).

2020To establish an ineffective- assistance claim, a defendant must demonstrate “(1) trial counsel failed to perform an essential duty; and (2) this omission resulted in prejudice.” State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860, 869 (Iowa 2003).

2020In order to succeed on an ineffective- assistance claim, the claimant must prove “(1) counsel failed to perform an essential duty; and (2) prejudice resulted.” Id. at 495 (quoting State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185, 195 (Iowa 2008)).

2016As already stated, in order to successfully establish an ineffective-assistance claim, Harrington must show by a preponderance of the evidence “counsel failed to perform an essential duty.” Id.

2025But “a decision by counsel based upon tactical judgment does not completely immunize the decision from an ineffective assistance challenge.” Ledezma, 626 N.W.2d at 143 . “[S]trategic decisions of counsel must be examined in light of all the circumstances to ascertain whether the actions were a product of tactics or inattention to the responsibilities of an attorney guaranteed a defendant under the Sixth Amendment.” Id.

2025But “a decision by counsel based upon tactical judgment does not completely immunize the decision from an ineffective assistance challenge.” Ledezma, 626 N.W.2d at 143 . “[S]trategic decisions of counsel must be examined in light of all the circumstances to ascertain whether the actions were a product of tactics or inattention to the responsibilities of an attorney guaranteed a defendant under the Sixth Amendment.” Id.

2024Shoemaker alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective in four respects (1) failing to move for a change of venue; (2) failing to limit evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts; (3) admitting to theft, failing to move for judgment of acquittal on the first-degree-robbery count, and failing to submit jury instructions on theft versus operating vehicle without owner’s consent; and (4) failing to present a defense of diminished capacity and intoxication. “[T]o succeed on an ineffective-assistance claim, a PCR applicant must establish that counsel breached a duty and prejudice resulted, and the

2023Dunbar v. State, 515 N.W.2d 12, 15 (Iowa 1994) (holding statutory right to counsel means the right to effective assistance of that counsel). “[T]o succeed on an ineffective- assistance claim, a PCR applicant must establish that counsel breached a duty and prejudice resulted, and the claim fails if either element is lacking.” Lusk v. State, No. 18-1125, 2019 WL 1953461 , at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. May 1, 2019) (citing Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 866 (Iowa 2012)). 2 Stockdall makes a passing reference to ineffective assistance of trial counsel in his appellate brief.

2016See Everett v. State, 789 N.W.2d 151, 159 (Iowa 2010) (holding that a defendant’s ineffective-assistance claim fails if either element is lacking).

2014See Everett v. State, 789 N.W.2d 151, 159 (Iowa 2010) (noting an ineffective-assistance claim may be resolved on the prejudice prong without considering whether counsel breached an essential duty).

2020See 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 it should not outright reject it.”), see also Goode v. State, 920 N.W.2d 520, 526-27 (Iowa 2018).

2020See, e.g., State v. Harris, 919 N.W.2d 753, 754 (Iowa 2018) (finding the record insufficient to resolve an ineffective-assistance claim raised as a fallback when the defendant “only include[ed] a cursory discussion of ineffective assistance in a footnote”).

2020In order to succeed on an ineffective- assistance claim, the claimant must prove “(1) counsel failed to perform an essential duty; and (2) prejudice resulted.” Id. at 495 (quoting State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185, 195 (Iowa 2008)).

2019To succeed on an ineffective- assistance claim, “a defendant 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).

2020With respect to the prejudice prong, we undertake a normal ineffective- assistance analysis, finding prejudice only where the defendant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that “a reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” State v. Ondayog, 722 N.W.2d 778 , 784–85 (Iowa 2006) (evaluating whether a defendant was prejudiced by his counsel’s conduct during a jury trial). 11 Hampton argues that the foster mother’s victim impact statement led the court to sentence Hampton to consecutive, instead of concu

2017See State v. Ondayog, 722 N.W.2d 778, 784 (Iowa 2006) (providing that an ineffective-assistance claim need not comport with standard error-preservation rules). 1.

2024See State v. Tate, 710 N.W.2d 237, 241 (Iowa 2006) (holding conclusory claims of prejudice cannot satisfy the prejudice component of an ineffective-assistance claim). 5.

2020However, when the challenge arises in the context of an ineffective-assistance claim, our standard of review is de novo.” State v. Tate, 710 N.W.2d 237, 239 (Iowa 2006) (citations omitted).

2020Here, we preserve the ineffective-assistance claim for postconviction relief proceedings, “where an adequate record of the claim can be developed and the attorney charged with providing ineffective assistance may have an opportunity to respond to defendant’s claims.” State v. Biddle, 652 N.W.2d 191, 203 (Iowa 2002).

2017State v. Biddle, 652 N.W.2d 191, 203 (Iowa 2002).

2019In the context of a guilty plea, a defendant shows prejudice by proving that, but for counsel’s breach, there is a reasonable probability the defendant “would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” State v. Carroll, 767 N.W.2d 638, 641 (Iowa 2009).

2017See State v. Carroll, 767 N.W.2d 638, 641 (Iowa 2009).

2020See Macke, 933 N.W.2d at 227 (“Iowa Code sections 814.6 and 814.7, as amended, do not apply to a direct appeal from a judgment and sentence entered before July 1, 2019.”); see also State v. Leahy, No. 18-1698, 2019 WL 5424959 , at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2019).

2020See State v. Macke, 933 N.W.2d 226 , 228 (Iowa 2019). 2 To succeed under the ineffective-assistance framework, Fisher must show counsel breached an essential duty and prejudice resulted.

2015See Taylor v. State, 352 N.W.2d 683, 685 (Iowa 1984) (stating if “it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice,” a court should so rule).

1985It is not necessary that “a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim to approach the inquiry in the same order or even to address both components of the inquiry if the petitioner makes an insufficient showing on one.” Strickland , 466 U.S. at -, 104 S.Ct. at 2069-70 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 699 ; accord Taylor v. State, 352 N.W.2d 683, 685 (Iowa 1984).

2020See Commonwealth v. Lavrinenko, 473 Mass. 42 , 38 N.E.3d 278, 290 (2015) (“[T]he failure of a criminal defense attorney to make a reasonable inquiry of the client regarding his or her citizenship and immigration status is sufficient to satisfy the deficient performance prong of the ineffective assistance analysis.”); State v. Favela, 343 P.3d 178 , 182 (N.M. 2015) (“A defense attorney’s failure to advise a client of the ‘specific immigration consequences of pleading guilty, including whether deportation would be virtually certain’ renders that attorney’s performance deficient, which satisfies

2020See Commonwealth v. Lavrinenko, 473 Mass. 42 , 38 N.E.3d 278, 290 (2015) (“[T]he failure of a criminal defense attorney to make a reasonable inquiry of the client regarding his or her citizenship and immigration status is sufficient to satisfy the deficient performance prong of the ineffective assistance analysis.”); State v. Favela, 343 P.3d 178 , 182 (N.M. 2015) (“A defense attorney’s failure to advise a client of the ‘specific immigration consequences of pleading guilty, including whether deportation would be virtually certain’ renders that attorney’s performance deficient, which satisfies

2020See Commonwealth v. Lavrinenko, 473 Mass. 42 , 38 N.E.3d 278, 290 (2015) (“[T]he failure of a criminal defense attorney to make a reasonable inquiry of the client regarding his or her citizenship and immigration status is sufficient to satisfy the deficient performance prong of the ineffective assistance analysis.”); State v. Favela, 343 P.3d 178 , 182 (N.M. 2015) (“A defense attorney’s failure to advise a client of the ‘specific immigration consequences of pleading guilty, including whether deportation would be virtually certain’ renders that attorney’s performance deficient, which satisfies

2020See Commonwealth v. Lavrinenko, 473 Mass. 42 , 38 N.E.3d 278, 290 (2015) (“[T]he failure of a criminal defense attorney to make a reasonable inquiry of the client regarding his or her citizenship and immigration status is sufficient to satisfy the deficient performance prong of the ineffective assistance analysis.”); State v. Favela, 343 P.3d 178 , 182 (N.M. 2015) (“A defense attorney’s failure to advise a client of the ‘specific immigration consequences of pleading guilty, including whether deportation would be virtually certain’ renders that attorney’s performance deficient, which satisfies

2016See State v. Rodriguez, 804 N.W.2d 844, 849 (Iowa 2011) (concluding if there is a factual basis for a plea, an ineffective-assistance claim attacking the factual basis must fail because “counsel has no duty to raise an issue that lacks merit”).

2015To succeed on an ineffective- assistance claim, a defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that trial counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and prejudice resulted. 6 See State v. Fix, 830 N.W.2d 744, 746 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013) (“Under Iowa law, when a defendant is convicted of separate homicide counts involving a single victim, judgment can be entered and sentence can be imposed for only one homicide offense.”) 12 State v. Rodriguez, 804 N.W.2d 844, 848 (Iowa 2011).

2020Prejudice element When reviewing an ineffective-assistance claim, courts “may consider either the prejudice prong or breach of duty first, and failure to find either one will preclude relief.” State v. McNeal, 897 N.W.2d 697, 703 (Iowa 2017) (quoting State v. Lopez, 872 N.W.2d 159, 169 (Iowa 2015)).

2016See id. at 169 (noting a defendant’s failure to prove either prong of an ineffective-assistance claim will preclude relief).

2020But Fisher alternatively raises an ineffective- assistance claim to bypass any error preservation issue.1 See State v. Fountain, 786 N.W.2d 260, 263 (Iowa 2010) (“Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are an exception to the traditional error-preservation rules.”).

2018To prevail on an ineffective-assistance claim, Sahir must show that “(1) counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and (2) prejudice resulted therefrom.” State v. Fountain, 786 N.W.2d 260 , 265–66 (Iowa 2010).

2022Cf. Dempsey v. State, 860 N.W.2d 860, 869 (Iowa 2015) (noting, when proving the prejudice prong of an ineffective-assistance claim in the guilty plea-context, the applicant’s burden requires “objective, corroborating evidence,” and “subjective, self-serving testimony” is not enough).

2015See Dempsey, 860 N.W.2d at 868 (noting we need not address both elements of the ineffective-assistance test as a defendant’s failure to establish either element is fatal to the claim).

2021In State v. Boldon, our supreme court held Iowa Code section 814.7 did not preclude the review of an alleged prosecutorial breach of a plea agreement because the alleged breach was a claim of sentencing error that could be reviewed directly without being cast as an ineffective-assistance claim. 954 N.W.2d 62 , 70– 71 (Iowa 2021); see also Jordan, 959 N.W.2d at 399.

2021In State v. Boldon, the Iowa Supreme Court held that Iowa Code section 814.7 does not preclude review of a claim for an alleged prosecutorial breach of a plea agreement because “an allegation the prosecutor breached the plea agreement at the time of sentencing is a species of sentencing error” and may be reviewed on direct appeal without being cast as an ineffective-assistance claim. 954 N.W.2d 62 , 69–70 (Iowa 2021); see State v. Jordan, 959 N.W.2d 395 , 399 (Iowa 2021) (explaining an alleged prosecutorial breach of a plea agreement at the time of sentencing challenges a defendant’s sentence,

2021A defendant asserting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must always show his “trial counsel failed to perform an essential duty and that this failure resulted in prejudice.” State v. Kress, 636 N.W.2d 12, 20 (Iowa 2001).

2020Thus, we preserve the ineffective-assistance claim, and Helai may pursue it in a postconviction-relief proceeding, if he so chooses.3 3 Citing State v. Kress, 636 N.W.2d 12 (Iowa 2001), Helai argues, under the scenario he is not a United States citizen, because the court did not advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea, the appropriate remedy is to set aside his conviction and sentence and allow him to plead anew.

2022See In re A.R.S., 480 N.W.2d 888, 891 (Iowa 1992) (“In order to establish an ineffective assistance claim, it must be shown that (1) counsel’s performance is deficient, and (2) actual prejudice resulted.”); see also In re T.P., 757 N.W.2d 267, 275 (Iowa Ct. App. 2008) (stating that, to show prejudice, a parent needs to prove that but for counsel’s alleged failures, “the result of the termination of parental rights proceedings would likely have been different”).

2021“In order to establish an ineffective assistance claim, it must be shown that (1) counsel’s performance is deficient, and (2) actual prejudice resulted.” Id.

2024As our supreme court has held section 814.7 does not violate the constitution as Hill suggests, the ineffective-assistance exception to the motion-in-arrest-of-judgment requirement “no longer provides an avenue for relief on direct appeal.” Id. 4 981 N.W.2d 454 , 461 (Iowa 2022) (“A guilty plea waives all defenses and challenges not intrinsic to the voluntariness of the plea” (quoting Tucker, 959 N.W.2d at 146)).

2023See id. at 153–54; Iowa Code § 814.7 .

2022State v. Jordan, 959 N.W.2d 395 , 399 (Iowa 2021) (determining that breach of a plea agreement “was a claim of sentencing error that could be reviewed directly without being cast as an ineffective-assistance claim”).

2021In State v. Boldon, the Iowa Supreme Court held that Iowa Code section 814.7 does not preclude review of a claim for an alleged prosecutorial breach of a plea agreement because “an allegation the prosecutor breached the plea agreement at the time of sentencing is a species of sentencing error” and may be reviewed on direct appeal without being cast as an ineffective-assistance claim. 954 N.W.2d 62 , 69–70 (Iowa 2021); see State v. Jordan, 959 N.W.2d 395 , 399 (Iowa 2021) (explaining an alleged prosecutorial breach of a plea agreement at the time of sentencing challenges a defendant’s sentence,