Deandre D. Goode v. State of Iowa , 920 N.W.2d 520 ( 2018 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 17–0318
Filed November 16, 2018
DEANDRE D. GOODE,
Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee.
On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County,
John G. Linn, Judge.
A petitioner for postconviction relief seeks further review of a court
of appeals decision that he did not have a constitutional right to the
effective assistance of counsel in those proceedings. DECISION OF
COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT
AFFIRMED.
Trent A. Henkelvig of Henkelvig Law, Danville, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bridget A. Chambers,
Assistant Attorney General, Amy Beavers, County Attorney, and Patricia
Lenzendorf, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
2
CADY, Chief Justice.
In this postconviction-relief (PCR) proceeding, the applicant claims
postconviction counsel was ineffective in presenting evidence at the PCR
hearing to support his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We
primarily consider his request that the case be remanded to the
postconviction court to give him an opportunity to present evidence to
support the ineffective-assistance-of-postconviction-counsel claim
because the record on appeal is inadequate for us to address the claim.
We conclude remand is not available, and the ineffective-assistance-of-
postconviction-counsel claim must be brought in a separate application
for PCR. We vacate the decision of the court of appeals and affirm the
decision of the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
The facts of this case resulted in the prosecution and conviction of
DeAndre Goode for the crime of robbery in the second degree. Shortly
before midnight on November 24, 2012, George Petree returned to his
home from a local grocery store. As he ascended the concrete stairs
leading from the sidewalk to his home, he caught a glimpse of an
African-American male, later identified as DeAndre Goode, running
towards him. Goode punched him in the face, and he fell to the ground.
Goode continued to punch and kick Petree, who curled into a ball to
protect himself. Two other men then joined Goode, and all three men
continued the physical assault. One of the men announced he had a
gun and wanted to shoot Petree. At that point, Petree begged him not to
for the sake of his daughter and told them to take his money. The three
men took Petree’s jacket and wallet and ran from the scene. Petree’s
wallet contained his debit and credit cards, driver’s license, social
security card, and other miscellaneous items.
3
About a month after the robbery, one of the credit cards was used
to make purchases online and at a Wal-Mart store. Someone also applied
for a credit card online under Petree’s name. Police were able to obtain
surveillance video from Wal-Mart and identified Goode and two other
individuals from the video.
Police officers obtained the Internet protocol address used for the
online application after supplying a subpoena to the Internet provider.
The Internet provider then gave police the street address connected to
the address. The street address belonged to Goode. Goode admitted to
being at Wal-Mart when the transactions occurred but denied any
knowledge of the robbery. He claimed a friend purchased Petree’s credit
cards from a man selling them on the street.
Police officers subsequently created a photo lineup that included a
photograph of Goode. Petree viewed the photo array and picked Goode
out of the photo array as the man who initially punched him in the face.
He indicated he was 100% positive in his selection.
The State charged Goode with robbery, and the case proceeded to a
jury trial. Goode testified at trial that he was at his apartment watching
television with his daughter and a friend on the night of the attack. He
also claimed he posted various photos taken that day on Facebook
around the time of the incident, thus establishing an alibi.
The jury found Goode guilty of second-degree robbery. The district
court subsequently imposed judgment and sentence. It ordered Goode to
serve ten years in prison with a mandatory minimum period of
incarceration of seventy percent and to pay a $1000 fine.
Goode appealed from his conviction. We transferred the case to
the court of appeals. It affirmed the judgment and sentence of the
district court in July 2014.
4
Goode subsequently filed a pro se application for PCR. He sought
to vacate his conviction based on newly discovered evidence. He claimed
physical evidence exists of the Facebook posts he made on the night of
the robbery and would show he was located at his apartment at the time
of the robbery.
The district court appointed counsel to represent Goode in the
postconviction proceeding, and his application eventually proceeded to a
hearing before the district court on a stipulated record, without oral
argument. The attorneys in the case, however, submitted written trial
briefs. In his brief, Goode’s counsel did not address the Facebook-alibi
claim raised by Goode in his pro se application. Instead, his attorney
argued in detail that Goode’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
challenge procedural defects in the photo array used to identify him as
the assailant. The brief also argued appellate counsel was ineffective for
failing to raise an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on the
defects in the photo array. Additionally, Goode’s postconviction counsel
argued that the ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel
prejudiced Goode because, without the photo identification, there was
insufficient evidence to support the conviction.
The district court denied the PCR application in a written ruling
filed in February 2017. First, it rejected the Facebook-alibi claim initially
raised by Goode in his application as a ground to vacate the conviction.
The district court found Goode failed to offer evidence to support the
claim of the newly discovered evidence and failed otherwise to offer a
reason for not raising the issue previously. Second, the district court
rejected Goode’s claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective
assistance by failing to challenge the photo array. It also found the
photo array was not suggestive. Finally, the district court found Goode’s
5
appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the photo-
identification issue on appeal because Goode was unable to demonstrate
his trial counsel was ineffective.
On February 27, Goode filed this appeal from the district court’s
decision denying his application for PCR. The only issue raised on
appeal pertains to the Facebook alibi. Goode argues the district court
improperly dismissed his PCR application because his postconviction
counsel failed to present physical evidence at the PCR hearing to support
the Facebook-alibi claim and failed to argue the claim in his written brief.
As a result, Goode claims on appeal that the actions of his counsel
denied him his right to effective postconviction counsel under the United
States Constitution and the Iowa Constitution. He asks that his PCR
application be remanded to the district court for a new hearing.
We transferred the case to the court of appeals. It affirmed the
decision by the district court. It rejected Goode’s claim of ineffective
assistance of postconviction counsel on the ground that it was framed as
a constitutional right, not a statutory right. It held Goode had no
constitutional right to PCR counsel and declined to address further the
substance of his claim.
II. Standard of Review.
“Generally, an appeal from a denial of an application for
postconviction relief is reviewed for correction of errors at law.” Goosman
v. State, 764 N.W.2d 539, 541 (Iowa 2009). However, when an applicant
claims ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel, our review is
de novo. Allison v. State, 914 N.W.2d 866, 870 (Iowa 2018).
Additionally, “when the applicant alleges constitutional error, review is
de novo ‘in light of the totality of the circumstances and the record upon
6
which the postconviction court’s rulings [were] made.’ ” Goosman, 764
N.W.2d at 541 (quoting Giles v. State, 511 N.W.2d 622, 627 (Iowa 1994)).
Goode claims his postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing
to include the alleged exculpatory Facebook evidence. Moreover, he
claims the court of appeals’ denial of his PCR petition is in direct conflict
with the plain language of the Iowa Constitution. Because Goode alleges
both a postconviction ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim and a
constitutional violation, our review of the matter is de novo.
III. Analysis.
We first address the decision of the court of appeals. While the
legal landscape is far from developed, we acknowledge that the
United States Supreme Court has not recognized a constitutional right to
PCR counsel. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555, 107 S. Ct.
1990, 1993 (1987); see also Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 755,
111 S. Ct. 2546, 2567–68 (1991) (holding modified by Martinez v. Ryan,
566 U.S. 1, 9, 132 S. Ct. 1309, 1315 (2012)); see also Allison, 914
N.W.2d at 872–82 (discussing the expansive history of United States
Supreme Court right-to-counsel cases). Likewise, we have not yet
recognized a right to PCR counsel under the Iowa Constitution. Instead,
we have utilized the statutory right to postconviction counsel when an
applicant presents a cognizable claim. 1 See Dunbar v. State, 515 N.W.2d
12, 14 (Iowa 1994); see also Fuhrmann v. State, 433 N.W.2d 720, 722
(Iowa 1988). Moreover, we have said that the statutory right to
postconviction counsel implies a right to effective postconviction counsel
in Iowa. Dunbar, 515 N.W.2d at 14 (“The right to counsel under [the
1In Dunbar v. State, we held Iowa Code section 663A.5, now codified at section
822.5, “gives the trial court discretion to appoint postconviction relief counsel” if an
applicant presents a cognizable claim in the postconviction proceeding. 515 N.W.2d 12,
14 (Iowa 1994).
7
Iowa statute] ‘necessarily implies that counsel be effective.’ ” (quoting
Patchette v. State, 374 N.W.2d 397, 398 (Iowa 1985))).
The court of appeals determined Goode’s claim was without merit
because he framed his underlying claim of ineffective assistance of PCR
counsel as a constitutional right. On that basis alone, it denied Goode’s
claim for relief.
Our appellate rules of procedure and judicial restraint expect
claims raised on appeal be specific. See State v. Tyler, 867 N.W.2d 136,
166 n.14 (Iowa 2015) (indicating a “passing reference” in a brief is
insufficient); Hyles v. Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864, 876 (Iowa 1996) (“[W]e
will not speculate on the arguments [the claimant] might have made and
then search for legal authority and comb the record for facts to support
such arguments.”). A party who fails to satisfy this standard risks
waiving the issue. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3) (providing that the
failure to cite authority for an issue may be deemed a waiver). The
requirement of specificity can be broad enough to encompass a specific
identification of the source of the claim, as well as specificity of the
underlying argument. See State v. Hitz, 766 P.2d 373, 375 (Or. 1988)
(recognizing distinctions between raising an issue, identifying a source
for a claim, making an argument, and discussing the importance of
clearly presenting issues on appeal). Yet, overall, the requirement is one
of fairness and does not value form over substance. Instead, it seeks to
put the parties and the court on the same page so the claim of error will
be fully understood and addressed on appeal.
In this case, the court of appeals placed form over substance. The
source of the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in this case was
not an issue on appeal, and the State was not disadvantaged in any way
by the manner in which Goode elected to frame his issue. In fact, both
8
parties agreed on appeal that Goode’s postconviction counsel failed to
offer any evidence at the postconviction hearing to support Goode’s claim
that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present physical
evidence of the Facebook posts to show his physical location at the time
of the robbery. As a result, Goode and the State only disagree on the
outcome of this inaction. Goode argues the case must be remanded to
the postconviction court to give him an opportunity to present the
physical evidence in support of his claim. The State, on the other hand,
argues the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel now raised on appeal
is barred under the three-year statute-of-limitation period under Iowa
Code section 822.3, and Goode cannot circumvent the bar by seeking to
present the claim on remand in this case. Consequently, the source of
the underlying right to effective postconviction counsel is not a contested
issue, and any misidentification of the source in stating the claim on
appeal is not a procedural infirmity that requires dismissal. We therefore
proceed to address the claim presented on appeal by considering the
State’s argument that the claim is now barred by the statute of
limitations.
Iowa Code section 822.3 establishes a three-year limitation period
to bring a claim of PCR. It provides,
All . . . applications [for postconviction relief] must be filed
within three years from the date the conviction or decision is
final or, in the event of an appeal, from the date the writ of
procedendo is issued. However, this limitation does not
apply to a ground of fact or law that could not have been
raised within the applicable time period.
Iowa Code § 822.3 (2015).
In Allison, we adopted a relation-back doctrine to the statutory
period of limitation under section 822.3 when an applicant alleges in a
second PCR proceeding brought outside the three-year time frame that
9
the attorney in the first PCR proceeding was ineffective in presenting the
same claim as raised in the second proceeding. 2 914 N.W.2d at 891.
Allison involved a defendant convicted of three counts of sexual abuse.
Id. at 867. He filed his first PCR application, claiming his trial counsel
was ineffective for not investigating alleged juror bias. Id. at 869. The
district court denied the application after finding no evidence offered at
the PCR hearing to prove the bias claim. Id. The defendant appealed
and claimed “his PCR counsel did not properly investigate the claim of
juror bias and, like his trial counsel, provided him with ineffective
assistance.” Id. This claim was denied on appeal, and the defendant
filed a second PCR application, which fell outside the three-year time
limitation under Iowa Code section 822.3. Id. at 870. We held,
[T]he 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 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.
Id. at 891. As a result, we departed from our earlier holding in State v.
Dible, 557 N.W.2d 881 (Iowa 1996), abrogated on other grounds by
Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509 (Iowa 2003).
Thus, as in Allison, a second PCR application in this case “alleging
postconviction counsel was ineffective in presenting the ineffective-
assistance-of-trial-counsel claim” would relate back to “the timing of the
filing of the original PCR petition for purposes of Iowa Code section
2We recognize Goode has not yet filed a second PCR petition. However, the basis
of the State’s argument is that because Goode’s second PCR petition would be time-
barred, he should not be allowed to develop the record on remand and effectively
sidestep the time limitation.
10
822.3,” if promptly filed. 914 N.W.2d at 891. Accordingly, the premise of
the State’s argument against remand on appeal is misplaced. Based on
Allison, the statutory limitation period is not an impediment to pursuing
a second PCR application relating to the claim in this case if promptly
filed following the appeal.
Nevertheless, remand in this case is contrary to the symmetry of
our appellate process and our role as a court of review. As a general
rule, we do not address issues presented on appeal for the first time, and
we do not remand cases to the district court for evidence on issues not
raised and decided by the district court. See Plowman v. Fort Madison
Cmty. Hosp., 896 N.W.2d 393, 413 (Iowa 2017) (“A supreme court is ‘a
court of review, not of first view.’ ” (quoting Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S.
709, 718 n.7, 125 S. Ct. 2113, 2120 n.7 (2005))); see also Felderman v.
City of Maquoketa, 731 N.W.2d 676, 679 (Iowa 2007) (“Ordinarily we do
not decide an issue on appeal that was not raised by a party or decided
by the district court.”). We carved out an exception to this rule, however,
for claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel raised for the first time
on appeal. State v. Scalise, 660 N.W.2d 58, 61 (Iowa 2003) (finding we
recognize this exception “because as a practical matter these claims are
not made by attorneys against their own actions”). We will decide these
claims on direct appeal when the appellate record is adequate. State v.
Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488, 494 (Iowa 2012). The rationale for this exception
is based on expediency, and the exception applies only when no
prejudice would result to any party. Cf. State v. Kellogg, 263 N.W.2d
539, 544 (Iowa 1978) (balancing the ineffective-representation claim,
raised after trial, in light of seriousness of defendant’s conviction and
state’s lack of opportunity to thresh out ineffective-representation issue
in district court).
11
In this appeal, the issue raised by Goode was not an issue raised
and decided in the district court. It was a new issue alleging ineffective
assistance of postconviction counsel. Goode claims his postconviction
counsel was ineffective for failing to support his claim of ineffective
assistance of trial counsel at the postconviction hearing in district court
with physical evidence of the posts he made on Facebook that would
corroborate his alibi. Without this evidence, and more, the parties
acknowledge the record on appeal is inadequate to address the new claim
of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel. See State v. Rubino,
602 N.W.2d 558, 563 (Iowa 1999) (declining to address four of five
ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal when “the challenged
actions of counsel implicate trial tactics or strategy which might be
explained in a record fully developed to address those issues”). Thus, the
exception we have made to our general rule, that otherwise limits
appellate review to issues raised and decided in the district court, does
not apply. The exception serves to achieve a prompt and fair resolution
of the claim without the time and expense of a new district court
proceeding. Remand, however, would not eliminate the time and
expense of a new district court proceeding. Accordingly, we decline to
remand claims of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel raised
for the first time on appeal to the district court to hear and decide.
Instead, the claims must be filed as a separate application in district
court.
We affirm the decision of the district court. In the context of the
issues submitted to the district court in the postconviction hearing, no
error occurred. The request made on appeal to remand the case to the
postconviction court fails not because of the statute of limitations
governing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, but the rules
12
governing our appellate process. The applicant must assert his claim of
ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel raised on appeal in a
separate application for PCR.
IV. Conclusion.
Having considered all claims raised on appeal, we vacate the
decision of the court of appeals and affirm the decision of the district
court.
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT
COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.