postconviction relief hearing in Iowa

2021His claim should be preserved for postconviction 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.”).

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

2017“That is particularly true where the challenged actions of counsel implicate trial tactics or strategy which might be explained in a record fully developed to address those issues.” State v. Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488, 494 (Iowa 2012). “[A]t a postconviction relief hearing, trial counsel will have an opportunity to explain [his or] her conduct and performance.” State v. Blair, 798 N.W.2d 322, 329 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011).

2015“That is particularly true where the challenged actions of counsel implicate trial tactics or strategy which might be explained in a record fully developed to address those issues.” State v. Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488, 494 (Iowa 2012). “[A]t a postconviction relief hearing, trial counsel will have an opportunity to explain [his or] her conduct and performance.” State v. Blair, 798 N.W.2d 322, 329 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011).

2017“That is particularly true where the challenged actions of counsel implicate trial tactics or strategy which might be explained in a record fully developed to address those issues.” State v. Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488, 494 (Iowa 2012). “[A]t a postconviction relief hearing, trial counsel will have an opportunity to explain [his or] her conduct and performance.” State v. Blair, 798 N.W.2d 322, 329 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011).

2015“That is particularly true where the challenged actions of counsel implicate trial tactics or strategy which might be explained in a record fully developed to address those issues.” State v. Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488, 494 (Iowa 2012). “[A]t a postconviction relief hearing, trial counsel will have an opportunity to explain [his or] her conduct and performance.” State v. Blair, 798 N.W.2d 322, 329 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011).

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

2020See State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128, 133 (Iowa 2006); State v. Ueding, 400 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Iowa 1987).

2006See State v. Ueding, 400 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Iowa 1987). 1.

2018Castro v. State, 795 N.W.2d 789, 793 (Iowa 2011).

2017Our supreme court has stated, “[W]hen a postconviction relief claim following a guilty plea is properly alleged, a case-by-case analysis is necessary ‘to determine whether counsel in a particular case breached a duty in advance of a guilty plea, and whether any such breach rendered the defendant’s plea unintelligent or involuntary.’” 4 Castro v. State, 795 N.W.2d 789, 793 (Iowa 2011) (quoting State v. Carroll, 767 N.W.2d 638, 644 (Iowa 2009)).

2015“Even a lawyer is entitled to his day in court, especially when his professional reputation is impugned.” State v. Bentley, 757 N.W.2d 257, 264 (Iowa 2008).

2015“Even a lawyer is entitled to his day in court, especially when his professional reputation is impugned.” State v. Bentley, 757 N.W.2d 257, 264 (Iowa 2008).

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

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

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

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

2018See State v. Johnson , 784 N.W.2d 192 , 198 (Iowa 2010) ; see also Iowa Code § 814.7 (1) (providing that a claim need not be raised on direct appeal in order to preserve it for postconviction-relief purposes).

2017See State v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192, 198 (Iowa 2010). 6 admonitions, which impair the integrity of the fact-finding process at trial. . . .

2016See Trobaugh, 668 N.W.2d at 583 ; see also Wiley, 966 P.2d at 994 (Mosk, J., dissenting) (asserting that the postconviction relief requirement “will screen out frivolous malpractice claims” obviating the need for an actual innocence requirement).

2016See Trobaugh, 668 N.W.2d at 583 ; see also Wiley, 966 P.2d at 994 (Mosk, J., dissenting) (asserting that the postconviction relief requirement “will screen out frivolous malpractice claims” obviating the need for an actual innocence requirement).

2016See Trobaugh, 668 N.W.2d at 583 ; see also Wiley, 966 P.2d at 994 (Mosk, J., dissenting) (asserting that the postconviction relief requirement “will screen out frivolous malpractice claims” obviating the need for an actual innocence requirement).

2016See Trobaugh, 668 N.W.2d at 583 ; see also Wiley, 966 P.2d at 994 (Mosk, J., dissenting) (asserting that the postconviction relief requirement “will screen out frivolous malpractice claims” obviating the need for an actual innocence requirement).

2017Our supreme court has stated, “[W]hen a postconviction relief claim following a guilty plea is properly alleged, a case-by-case analysis is necessary ‘to determine whether counsel in a particular case breached a duty in advance of a guilty plea, and whether any such breach rendered the defendant’s plea unintelligent or involuntary.’” 4 Castro v. State, 795 N.W.2d 789, 793 (Iowa 2011) (quoting State v. Carroll, 767 N.W.2d 638, 644 (Iowa 2009)).

2011Thus, when a postconviction relief claim following a guilty plea is properly alleged, a case-by-case analysis is necessary “to determine whether counsel in a particular case breached a duty in advance of a guilty plea, and whether any such breach rendered the defendant’s plea unintelligent or involuntary.” Id.

2026And the “withholding of cumulative testimony is not a sufficient showing of prejudice.” Schrier v. State, 347 N.W.2d 657, 664 (Iowa 1984).

2025See Dewberry, 941 N.W.2d at 6, 9 (noting that Schmidt involved a “potentially viable claim of actual innocence” because the applicant “wholly denied the offense occurred”); see also Beavers v. Saffle, 216 F.3d 918, 923 (10th Cir. 2000) (stating that intoxication and self-defense arguments “go to legal innocence, as opposed to factual innocence”); Penticoff v. State, No. 23-0650, 2024 WL 2043142 , at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. May 8, 2024) (questioning whether applicant “properly asserted a claim of actual innocence” where he raised intoxication and self-defense arguments in a postconviction-relief chal

2024See State v. Deschon, 40 P.3d 391, 395 (Mont. 2002) (finding no actual conflict of interest where the testimony of a defense witness, who was represented by the defendant’s attorney, supported the defendant’s theory that the murder victim was the aggressor in the fight).

2024See Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 862 (Iowa 2012).

2024See Nichol v. State, 309 N.W.2d 468, 470 (Iowa 1981) (“Ordinarily complaints about failure to 10 call witnesses should be accompanied by a showing their testimony would have been beneficial.”).

2024Yet on appeal, Tate claims a conflict existed because by calling Guy as a witness, Puryear elicited “damning testimony about Tate’s drug use that day.” We 12 fail to see the conflict here.2 See State v. McKinley, 860 N.W.2d 874, 880 (Iowa 2015) (“A conflict does not exist just because one party asserts it does.”). “[M]ost cases that have discussed conflicts of interest have involved an attorney who has represented a defendant or a prosecution witness in the current prosecution or simultaneous civil litigation.” Pippins v. State, 661 N.W.2d 544, 548 (Iowa 2003) (citing Watson, 620 N.W.2d at 238

2024Yet on appeal, Tate claims a conflict existed because by calling Guy as a witness, Puryear elicited “damning testimony about Tate’s drug use that day.” We 12 fail to see the conflict here.2 See State v. McKinley, 860 N.W.2d 874, 880 (Iowa 2015) (“A conflict does not exist just because one party asserts it does.”). “[M]ost cases that have discussed conflicts of interest have involved an attorney who has represented a defendant or a prosecution witness in the current prosecution or simultaneous civil litigation.” Pippins v. State, 661 N.W.2d 544, 548 (Iowa 2003) (citing Watson, 620 N.W.2d at 238

2021See Arnold v. State, 540 N.W.2d 243, 246 (Iowa 1995).

2019As our supreme court recognized, “Under the ‘reasonable probability’ standard, it is abundantly clear that most 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.” State v. Bearse, 748 N.W.2d 211, 219 (Iowa 2008) (quoting State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128, 138 (Iowa 2006)). “[O]nly [in] rare cases will the defendant be able to muster enough evidence to prove prejudice without a postconviction relief hearing” because the record from the district court proceedings is generally “devoid of evidence indicating