claim-of-right defense in Iowa

2024See Iowa Code § 714.4 (codifying the claim-of-right defense and stating that “[n]o person who takes, obtains, disposes of, other otherwise uses or acquires property, is guilty of theft” (emphasis added)); see also State v. Miller, 622 N.W.2d 782, 785 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000) (“The express terms of section 714.4 provide that it is only a defense to a theft charge.

2018In Miller, we noted, “The explicit language of section 714.4 appears to confine the claim-of-right defense to theft charges.” Id. 13 at 785 n.2.

2018The court went on to analyze the “modern trend . . . to decline to recognize the claim-of-right defense to offenses involving force, such as robbery or burglary.” Id.; see also People v. Tufunga, 987 P.2d 168, 177-78 (Cal. 1999) (outlining modern trend).

2000See People v. Tufunga, 21 Cal.4th 935 , 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 143 , 987 P.2d 168, 177 (1999) (noting trend but recognizing continued viability of the defense in California in very limited circumstances).

2018For instance, in State v. Hobbs, 64 P.3d 1218, 1222-23 (Utah App. 2003), the Utah court cited our case with approval and observed: Many other jurisdictions have addressed this issue and determined that although the claim of right defense may be statutorily available for theft offenses, it is not available for robbery or burglary offenses.

2018For instance, in State v. Hobbs, 64 P.3d 1218, 1222-23 (Utah App. 2003), the Utah court cited our case with approval and observed: Many other jurisdictions have addressed this issue and determined that although the claim of right defense may be statutorily available for theft offenses, it is not available for robbery or burglary offenses.

2018See also Whitescarver v. State, 962 P.2d 192, 195 (Alaska Ct. App. 1998) (stating “there is no ‘claim of right’ defense to robbery”); State v. Schaefer, 790 P.2d 281, 284 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990) (“From a policy standpoint, the claim of right defense remains anachronistic: it encourages disputants to resolve disputes on the streets through violence instead of through the judicial system.”); Thomas v. State, 584 So.2d 1022, 1026 (Fla. Dist.

2018Because Buchanan cannot establish his trial attorney breached an essential duty in failing to raise a claim-of-right defense, his ineffective-assistance-of- counsel claim fails.4 See Ledezma, 626 N.W.2d at 142 (noting an ineffectiveness claim fails if either element is not proved). 4 This court is not alone in rejecting a claim-of-right defense to robbery and burglary.

2018See also Whitescarver v. State, 962 P.2d 192, 195 (Alaska Ct. App. 1998) (stating “there is no ‘claim of right’ defense to robbery”); State v. Schaefer, 790 P.2d 281, 284 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990) (“From a policy standpoint, the claim of right defense remains anachronistic: it encourages disputants to resolve disputes on the streets through violence instead of through the judicial system.”); Thomas v. State, 584 So.2d 1022, 1026 (Fla. Dist.

2018See also Whitescarver v. State, 962 P.2d 192, 195 (Alaska Ct. App. 1998) (stating “there is no ‘claim of right’ defense to robbery”); State v. Schaefer, 790 P.2d 281, 284 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990) (“From a policy standpoint, the claim of right defense remains anachronistic: it encourages disputants to resolve disputes on the streets through violence instead of through the judicial system.”); Thomas v. State, 584 So.2d 1022, 1026 (Fla. Dist.

2016Ineffective assistance is defined as deficient performance by counsel resulting in prejudice; we measure counsel’s performance under an “objective standard of reasonableness” and “prevailing professional norms.” See State v. Maxwell, 743 1 Enochs does not challenge his going-armed conviction on appeal. 5 N.W.2d 185, 195 (Iowa 2008) (quoting Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 380 (2005)).

2016Ineffective assistance is defined as deficient performance by counsel resulting in prejudice; we measure counsel’s performance under an “objective standard of reasonableness” and “prevailing professional norms.” See State v. Maxwell, 743 1 Enochs does not challenge his going-armed conviction on appeal. 5 N.W.2d 185, 195 (Iowa 2008) (quoting Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 380 (2005)).

2000As one court noted, to accept the claim-of-right defense in contexts where force has been used is “one step short of accepting lawless reprisal as an appropriate means of redressing grievances,.... ” Hodges, 496 N.Y.S.2d at 774 (citation omitted).