ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim in Iowa

2023On June 25, 2018, the Iowa Supreme Court decided Allison v. State, 914 N.W.2d 866, 890 (Iowa 2018), “qualify[ing] Dible.” It held: [W]here a PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel has been timely filed per section 822.3 and there is a successive PCR petition alleging postconviction counsel was ineffective in presenting the ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim, the timing of the filing of the second PCR petition relates back to the timing of the filing of the original PCR petition for purposes of Iowa Code section 822.3 if the successive PCR petition is filed pro

2022However, Allison is clear that there must be “a successive PCR petition alleging postconviction counsel was ineffective in presenting the ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim.” 914 N.W.2d at 891 (emphasis added).

2017See Boose v. State, No. 13–1130, 2014 WL 7343218 , at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 24, 2014) (applying the “overwhelming evidence” standard cited in 6 State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185, 197 (Iowa 2008), to the applicant’s ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim in a PCR action).

2017See Boose v. State, No. 13-1130, 2014 WL 7343218 , at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 24, 2014) (applying the “overwhelming evidence” standard cited in State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185, 197 (Iowa 2008), to the applicant’s ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim in a PCR action).

2022See Allison v. State, 914 N.W.2d 866, 819 (Iowa 2018) (“In order to avoid the difficult constitutional position that would result in denying a remedy where defense counsel allegedly provided ineffective assistance at trial and postconviction counsel is ineffective in raising that claim, we think the best approach is to hold that where a PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel has been timely filed per section 822.3 and there is a successive PCR petition alleging postconviction counsel was ineffective in presenting the ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim, the tim

2019See Allison v. State, 914 N.W.2d 866, 819 (Iowa 2018) (“In order to avoid the difficult constitutional position that would result in denying a remedy where defense counsel allegedly provided ineffective assistance at trial and postconviction counsel is ineffective in raising that claim, we think the best approach is to hold that where a PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel has been timely filed per section 822.3 and there is a successive PCR petition alleging postconviction counsel was ineffective in presenting the ineffective-assistance-of- trial-counsel claim, the ti

2016See, generally, Ledezma, 626 N.W.2d at 141-42 (Iowa 2001) (stating that to prove ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, PCR applicant must show that the ineffective-assistance-of- trial-counsel claim would have prevailed if raised on direct appeal).

2015See, generally, Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134 , 141–42 (Iowa 2001) (stating that to prove ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, PCR applicant must show the ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim would have prevailed if raised on direct appeal).

2021See Dible v. State, 557 N.W.2d 881, 886 (Iowa 1996), abrogated on other grounds by Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509, 520 (Iowa 2003).

2020“Our review of the court’s ruling on the State’s statute-of-limitations defense is for correction of errors of law.” Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509, 519 (Iowa 2003).

2022See Krogmann v. State, 914 N.W.2d 293, 306 (Iowa 2018) (“Failure to raise a meritless issue does not establish counsel’s performance was deficient.”). 4 Our legislature amended Iowa Code section 822.3 in 2019 to prohibit the so- called “relation back” doctrine enunciated in Allison.

2022In Allison, our supreme court held: [W]here a PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel has been timely filed per section 822.3 and there is a successive PCR petition alleging postconviction counsel was ineffective in presenting the ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim, the timing of the filing of the second PCR petition relates back to the timing of the filing of the original PCR petition for purposes of Iowa Code section 822.3 if the successive PCR petition is filed promptly after the conclusion of the first PCR action.[24] 21 Johnson v. State, No. 19-1949, 2021

2021See 305 N.W.2d 739, 745 (Iowa 1981) (concluding “confinement” or “removal” under section 710.1 “require[s] more than the confinement or removal that is an inherent incident of commission of the crime of sexual abuse” and “confinement or removal may exist because it substantially increases the risk of harm to the victim, significantly lessens the risk of detection, or significantly facilitates escape following the consummation of the offense” (emphasis added)).

2021See Dible v. State, 557 N.W.2d 881, 886 (Iowa 1996), abrogated on other grounds by Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509, 520 (Iowa 2003).

2016An ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim “need not be raised on direct appeal from the criminal proceedings in order to preserve the claim for postconviction relief purposes.” Iowa Code § 814.7 (1) (2013); see also State v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192, 198 (Iowa 2010) (“[W]e hold defendants are no longer required to raise ineffective- assistance claims on direct appeal, and when they choose to do so, they are not required to make any particular record in order to preserve the claim for postconviction relief.”).

2016An ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim “need not be raised on direct appeal from the criminal proceedings in order to preserve the claim for postconviction relief purposes.” Iowa Code § 814.7 (1) (2013); see also State v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192, 198 (Iowa 2010) (“[W]e hold defendants are no longer required to raise ineffective- assistance claims on direct appeal, and when they choose to do so, they are not required to make any particular record in order to preserve the claim for postconviction relief.”).

2016Dockery also alleges his counsels’ performance was so deficient as to cause structural error, which rendered the PCR proceeding “presumptively unreliable.” See Lado v. State, 804 N.W.2d 248, 252 (Iowa 2011).

2016Ct., 612 N.W.2d 101, 103 (Iowa 2000)); see also State v. Grosvenor, 402 N.W.2d 402, 405 (Iowa 1987) 1 The PCR court further found Moss’s appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to present an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim based on these grounds.

2016Ct., 612 N.W.2d 101, 103 (Iowa 2000)); see also State v. Grosvenor, 402 N.W.2d 402, 405 (Iowa 1987) 1 The PCR court further found Moss’s appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to present an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim based on these grounds.