State of Iowa v. Larry Dale Hommer ( 2015 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-1806
Filed November 25, 2015
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
LARRY DALE HOMMER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Martha L. Mertz,
Judge.
Larry Dale Hommer appeals his convictions for conspiracy to manufacture
more than five grams of methamphetamine and conspiracy to deliver more than
five grams of methamphetamine. AFFIRMED.
Joey T. Hoover of Hoover Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Winterset, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.
2
VOGEL, Judge.
Larry Dale Hommer appeals his convictions for conspiracy to manufacture
more than five grams of methamphetamine and conspiracy to deliver more than
five grams of methamphetamine, in violation of Iowa Code section
124.401(1)(b)(7) (2011). He contends there is insufficient corroboration of his
coconspirators’ testimony and insufficient evidence to support his convictions.
He also challenges the admission of evidence he alleges is exempt from the
public records exception to the hearsay rule. Finally, he contends his trial
counsel provided ineffective assistance regarding his prior conviction for
conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine.
We conclude there is sufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of
two of Hommer’s accomplices, and this testimony along with other record
evidence is sufficient to support Hommer’s convictions. We further conclude the
challenged evidence was admissible under the business records exception to the
hearsay rule. Because the record before us is insufficient to allow us to
determine Hommer’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, we preserve them
for possible postconviction-relief proceedings.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
A conspiracy to manufacture and deliver methamphetamine in Warren
County first came to light in 2012, after law enforcement obtained data from the
National Precursor Log Exchange (NPLEx). The NPLEx tracks purchases of
products containing pseudoephedrine, an ingredient used in the manufacture of
methamphetamine. An analysis of the NPLEx data revealed that the “top
pseudoephedrine buyer” in Warren County was Randy Crow.
3
Randy Crow and his brother, Rodney Crow, own neighboring cabins in an
area referred to as “Crow Park.” Law enforcement conducted a two-week
surveillance of Crow Park and noticed a pattern of visitors. The license plate
numbers of those visitors’ vehicles were used to obtain the visitors’ names, which
were then checked against the NPLEx records. A pattern of purchases made by
these individuals indicated they were using a technique called “smurfing,” in
which many people gather pseudoephedrine pills in small quantities to
manufacture methamphetamine. Based on that information, law enforcement
obtained and executed search warrants on a number of Crow Park locations.
Randy and Rodney Crow were arrested along with their brother, Brent Crow, and
Regina Vaught-Rudich.
Hommer was one of the individuals identified as a frequent visitor to Crow
Park. Investigators observed Hommer arriving at Crow Park the morning after
those purchasing pseudoephedrine had come and gone. A GPS tracking device
was placed on Hommer’s vehicle as part of the investigation. The tracking
device data shows that Hommer’s vehicle was driven to the Walmart store in
Oskaloosa on September 29, 2012. The NPLEx records show Brock Burgdorf
purchased pseudoephedrine on that date. Surveillance video shows Burgdorf
exiting Hommer’s vehicle, entering Walmart, and purchasing pseudoephedrine.
Investigators reviewed Burgdorf’s pseudoephedrine purchases and
discovered a pattern of purchases with four other individuals. Burgdorf and those
four individuals were arrested as part of the conspiracy to manufacture and
deliver methamphetamine. Law enforcement eventually arrested eight others in
connection with the conspiracy, including Velda Crosby and Rhonda Dawson.
4
The NPLEx records show those identified as being involved in the conspiracy
purchased pseudoephedrine 650 times between July 2010 and August 2012.
Hommer was arrested in connection with the conspiracy on October 15,
2012. After his arrest, pseudoephedrine purchases from all but two of the
identified coconspirators stopped. Crosby, one of the two coconspirators who
made a purchase after Hommer’s arrest, testified she did so to help exculpate
Hommer.
Before trial, Hommer filed a motion in limine to exclude the NPLEx
records. He argued they were public records and investigatory reports, and
therefore, the records were inadmissible as hearsay under Iowa Rule of
Evidence 5.803(8)(B). He also objected to the records’ admission at trial. The
trial court ruled the records were admissible under the business record exception
to the hearsay rule.
The State called four of Hommer’s accomplices to testify at trial: Randy
Crow, Rodney Crow, Dawson, and Crosby. Randy Crow testified that Hommer
had asked him to purchase Sudafed to manufacture methamphetamine in order
to support their drug habits. In return, Hommer gave Randy approximately one
gram of methamphetamine per box of Sudafed. Randy purchased Sudafed
every ten days as allowed by law. During the course of the conspiracy, he
purchased Sudafed a total of sixty-nine times and gave the Sudafed directly to
Hommer on all but three occasions. On those three occasions, Randy gave the
pills to his brother, Brent Crow, who knew how to manufacture
methamphetamine and did so with Hommer. Randy also collected Sudafed from
others who purchased it as part of the conspiracy. He gave the pills to Hommer
5
or Brent Crow and, in turn, delivered each person their share of the
manufactured methamphetamine after receiving it from Hommer.
Rodney Crow testified that Brent Crow asked him to purchase
pseudoephedrine pills and to collect them from other people in order to
manufacture methamphetamine. Rodney recruited Dawson and others to
purchase the pills every ten days. Although Brent usually arrived to collect the
pills alone, Hommer came with him on occasion. Rodney then gave the pills to
Brent with the expectation that he would be compensated with
methamphetamine the next day. Although Brent usually provided Rodney with
the methamphetamine, Rodney testified that Hommer did so on at least one
occasion.
Dawson testified she initially provided pseudoephedrine to Robert Vaught
in exchange for methamphetamine but did not know where the
methamphetamine came from. Later, she gave the pills to Rodney Crow, who at
some point informed Dawson he was giving the pills to Brent Crow. Although
Dawson provided the pills directly to Brent a couple times, she never provided
them directly to Hommer. Dawson did not know Hommer well, but she knew
Hommer and Brent were friends and saw them hanging out together a couple of
times.
Crosby testified she became friends with Hommer and used
methamphetamine with him. Hommer asked Crosby to purchase
pseudoephedrine—specifically, Sudafed—and provided her with the money to
buy it, which she did every ten days. Because Crosby did not have a vehicle,
Hommer sometimes drove her to purchase it. She also rode along with Hommer
6
when he went to gather pills from other people and witnessed Hommer give
Burgdorf money to purchase pseudoephedrine. Crosby enlisted friends who
used methamphetamine to purchase pseudoephedrine, which was then given to
Hommer in exchange for methamphetamine. Crosby received approximately
three-quarters of a gram of methamphetamine in exchange for purchasing
pseudoephedrine, but she testified that sometimes it was less because, as
Hommer told Crosby, “it didn’t make as much.” After Crosby provided Hommer
with the pseudoephedrine, Hommer would put the pills into a small black box with
a magnet on the back and secure it inside the wheel well of his vehicle. Crosby
testified that she heard what sounded like Hommer running the pills through a
grinder in his bedroom. She also observed that Brent Crow would come to
Hommer’s home every ten days and the two would leave the home together after
midnight.
At the close of the State’s evidence and again at the close of trial,
Hommer moved for judgment of acquittal based primarily on the lack of evidence
corroborating the accomplice testimony. Without that testimony, Hommer
argued, there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction on either charge.
The trial court denied both motions.
The jury found Hommer guilty of conspiracy to manufacture more than five
grams of methamphetamine and conspiracy to deliver more than five grams of
methamphetamine. Hommer filed a motion in arrest of judgment, alleging there
lacked evidence corroborating the accomplice testimony and that without the
accomplice testimony there was insufficient evidence to convict him. He also
filed a motion for new trial, urging the trial court erred in admitting the NPLEx
7
records into evidence. Both motions were denied, and Hommer was sentenced
to a term of not more than twenty-five years in prison.
II. Accomplice Testimony.
On appeal, Hommer again challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
corroborating the accomplice testimony presented at trial. Specifically, he argues
the district court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal and his
motion in arrest of judgment because the testimony of Randy Crow, Rodney
Crow, Dawson, and Crosby was not corroborated by evidence tying him to the
conspiracy.
Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.21(3) provides that a conviction may
not be had on the testimony of an accomplice unless that testimony is
corroborated by other evidence that tends to connect the defendant with the
commission of the offense. The purpose of this rule is twofold: “First, it
independently tends to connect defendant to the crime. Second, it supports the
credibility of an accomplice whose motives are clearly suspect because of the
accomplice’s self-interest in focusing blame on the defendant.” State v. Brown,
397 N.W.2d 689, 694 (Iowa 1986).
While the corroborating evidence need not be strong or confirm each
material fact testified to by the accomplice, it must corroborate some material
aspect of the accomplice’s testimony and tend to connect the defendant with the
offense. Id. at 694-95; State v. Hutchinson, 341 N.W.2d 33, 37 (Iowa 1983).
“[C]orroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense
or the circumstances thereof.” Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.21(3). The testimony of one
8
accomplice is also insufficient to corroborate the testimony of another
accomplice. State v. Barnes, 791 N.W.2d 817, 824 (Iowa 2010).
The existence of corroborative evidence is a question of law to be
determined by the trial court. Hutchinson, 341 N.W.2d at 37. The sufficiency of
that evidence is a question of fact to be determined by the jury. Id. We review a
challenge to the court’s determination of the existence of corroborative evidence
for correction of errors at law. State v. Bugely, 562 N.W.2d 173, 176 (Iowa
1997). In so doing, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State
and indulge in every legitimate inference that may be fairly and reasonably
deduced from it. Id.There is no question here that Randy Crow, Rodney Crow, Dawson, and
Crosby are accomplices. The State admits as much, and the four were charged
with commission of the same crime. The question is whether their testimony is
corroborated by other evidence connecting Hommer to the crime.
Randy Crow’s testimony was corroborated by NPLEx data and
surveillance evidence showing Hommer visited Crow Park at regular intervals
immediately following the dates pseudoephedrine was purchased by those
involved with the conspiracy. Randy’s testimony that Hommer drove him to
Walmart to purchase pseudoephedrine is also corroborated. Surveillance video
of the Walmart in Indianola shows Hommer’s vehicle pulling up to the door and
Randy exiting the vehicle at 4:27 p.m. on August 15, 2012. At 4:29 p.m., the
video shows Randy purchasing Sudafed. The purchase is confirmed in the
NPLEx records. The surveillance video then shows Randy exit the store and get
9
back into Hommer’s vehicle at 4:35 p.m. This evidence connects Hommer to the
crimes by showing he took action to further the conspiracy.
Similar evidence corroborates Crosby’s testimony. Crosby testified she
witnessed Hommer give Burgdorf money to purchase pseudoephedrine and was
with Hommer when Burgdorf purchased pseudoephedrine. Surveillance
evidence shows Hommer’s vehicle was at the Walmart in Oskaloosa at 5:48 p.m.
on September 29, 2012. Video surveillance shows Burgdorf exiting Hommer’s
vehicle and purchasing pseudoephedrine, which is confirmed by NPLEx records.
Again, this evidence corroborates Hommer’s participation in the crimes by
showing Hommer took action to further the conspiracy.
There is also evidence to corroborate part of Rodney Crow’s and
Dawson’s testimony. For instance, the NPLEx records corroborate their claims
about the other individuals who were involved in purchasing pseudoephedrine for
the conspiracy. However, very little of their testimony relates to Hommer or his
role in the conspiracy.1 Rodney’s testimony that Hommer provided him with
methamphetamine at least one time tentatively connects Hommer to the
conspiracy, but there is no independent evidence to corroborate it. Dawson did
not provide testimony to adequately connect Hommer to the conspiracy.
Therefore, neither the testimony of Rodney Crow nor Dawson is corroborated.
1
With regard to Hommer, Rodney Crow testified only to the following: he had known
Hommer since third grade, he knew Hommer to drive a white Dodge SUV, and he
received methamphetamine directly from Hommer at least once. Dawson’s testimony
mainly concerned Brent Crow, with whom she had a relationship. With regard to
Hommer, she testified: she had seen Brent and Hommer hang out a couple times, she
didn’t know Hommer “that well,” she knew Hommer and Brent had been friends since
they were in school, she had seen Hommer in a silver Durango, and she had used
methamphetamine with Hommer on two occasions.
10
Corroboration of accomplice testimony is not necessary if “the conviction
could have been sustained without the testimony of the accomplice.” State v.
Hobbs, 107 N.W.2d 238, 242 (Iowa 1961); see also State v. Huntington, 80
N.W.2d 744, 746 (Iowa 1957) (holding accomplice testimony is admissible and
requires no corroboration to be considered as evidence that the crime was
committed by someone). The testimony of Rodney Crow and Dawson provided
the jury with an overview of the size and scope of the conspiracy, as well as how
it worked,2 but very little from their testimony relates to Hommer or his
involvement in the conspiracy. Because the testimony of Rodney Crow and
Dawson is not evidence upon which a jury could convict Hommer of either
conspiracy to manufacture or conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine,
corroborative evidence was not required under rule 2.21(3).
Because there is sufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of Randy
Crow and Crosby, and corroboration is not needed for the testimony of Rodney
2
From our review of the evidence, it appears the conspiracy had three tiers. At the
bottom were Dawson and Crosby, as well as others who obtained pseudoephedrine to
be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine and, in exchange, received a portion
of the methamphetamine manufactured from it. In the middle were Randy and Rodney
Crow, who not only purchased pseudoephedrine but also acted as intermediaries by
collecting the pseudoephedrine from the bottom tier individuals and delivering it to those
manufacturing the methamphetamine. Once the methamphetamine was manufactured,
they received the finished product and delivered each individual purchaser their share of
the methamphetamine. At the top of the operation were Hommer and Brent Crow, who
manufactured the methamphetamine.
It also appears the operation was divided into two branches. Randy Crow
functioned as an intermediary between half of those obtaining pseudoephedrine and
Hommer, while Rodney Crow acted as an intermediate between the other half and Brent
Crow. While there was occasional exchanging of duties between Hommer and Brent
Crow, presumably when one was unavailable, it appears there was little interaction by
one half with the other. As a result, the evidence of Hommer’s involvement comes
primarily from Randy Crow and Crosby, who worked on Hommer’s side of the operation.
Rodney Crow and Dawson worked on Brent Crow’s side of the operation and
had limited knowledge of, or interaction with, Hommer. Their testimony alone is
insufficient to convict Hommer; instead, it shows how the conspiracy operated as a
whole.
11
Crow and Dawson, we affirm the denial of Hommer’s motions for judgment of
acquittal and motion in arrest of judgment.
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Hommer also contends there is insufficient evidence to support his
convictions. We review this claim for a correction of errors at law. State v.
Sandford, 814 N.W.2d 611, 615 (Iowa 2012). We consider all the evidence in the
record in the light most favorable to the State. Id. If there is substantial record
evidence to support the verdict, we uphold it. Id. Evidence is substantial if it can
convince a rational jury the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.We recognize the jury is free to reject certain evidence and credit other evidence.
Id.Hommer was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine
and conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine. Because conspiracies are
clandestine affairs by nature, there is rarely direct evidence of an agreement to
form a conspiracy. See State v. Kern, 831 N.W.2d 149, 159 (Iowa 2013).
Therefore, circumstantial evidence and the inferences drawn from it may support
a conviction on a conspiracy charge. Id. However, circumstantial evidence of an
agreement must be based on more than suspicion. Id.A. Conspiracy to Manufacture.
In order to convict Hommer of conspiracy to manufacture
methamphetamine, the State was required to show the following:
1. Between August 2010 and October 15, 2012, the
Defendant agreed with one or more other persons that:
a. One or more of them would manufacture
methamphetamine; or
b. Attempt to manufacture methamphetamine.
12
2. The Defendant entered into the agreement with the intent
to promote or facilitate the manufacture of methamphetamine.
3. The Defendant or one or more other persons committed
an overt act.
4. None of these other people were law enforcement agents
investigating the manufacturing of methamphetamine or assisting
law enforcement agents when the conspiracy began.
Hommer challenges the evidence of an agreement and the evidence of
manufacturing.
A jury could reasonably find an agreement existed between Hommer and
the other members of the conspiracy. Randy Crow and Crosby testified they
provided pseudoephedrine directly to Hommer and, in exchange, received
directly from Hommer an amount of methamphetamine manufactured from it. In
addition, the evidence shows Hommer drove Randy Crow to Walmart, where he
purchased pseudoephedrine before getting back into Hommer’s vehicle.
Hommer also gave Burgdorf money to purchase pseudoephedrine and drove him
to Walmart to make the purchase. Coupled with the patterns of
pseudoephedrine purchases and Hommer’s appearance at Crow Park the day
after the pseudoephedrine was collected, there is substantial evidence Hommer
entered into an agreement to manufacture methamphetamine and had the intent
to do so.
Hommer argues there is no evidence of manufacturing because he was
never found in possession of methamphetamine or any of its precursors. Both
Randy Crow and Crosby testified they received methamphetamine directly from
Hommer. Crosby testified that after receiving pseudoephedrine from Randy
Crow, she heard Hommer grind the pills in his bedroom. He would then leave
with Brent Crow for an hour or two in the middle of the night. The following day,
13
Hommer provided Randy Crow with methamphetamine to compensate him and
others for purchasing the pseudoephedrine. Crosby testified that when the
amount of methamphetamine received was smaller than normal, Hommer
explained “it didn’t make as much.” Viewing the foregoing in the light most
favorable to the State, we conclude there is substantial evidence to support
Hommer’s conviction of conspiracy to manufacture more than five grams of
methamphetamine.
B. Conspiracy to Deliver.
Hommer also contends there is insufficient evidence by which a jury could
find him guilty of conspiracy to deliver more than five grams of
methamphetamine. In order to secure a conviction for conspiracy to deliver
methamphetamine, the State was required to prove the following:
1. Between August 2010 and October 15, 2012, the
Defendant agreed with one or more other persons that:
a. One or more of them would deliver methamphetamine; or
b. Attempt to deliver methamphetamine.
2. The Defendant entered into the agreement with the intent
to promote or facilitate the delivery of methamphetamine.
3. The Defendant or one or more other people committed an
overt act.
4. None of these other people were law enforcement agents
investigating the manufacture of methamphetamine or assisting law
enforcement agents in the investigation when the conspiracy
began.
There is ample evidence by which a reasonable jury could find Hommer
guilty of conspiracy to deliver more than five grams of methamphetamine. Randy
Crow and Crosby testified that Hommer provided them with methamphetamine
on multiple occasions. In addition, Hommer provided Randy Crow with
methamphetamine that he was to deliver to others in exchange for providing
14
pseudoephedrine. The methamphetamine was measured and in individual
baggies for delivery with each person’s initials marked on the bag.
Because there is sufficient evidence to support Hommer’s convictions, we
affirm the denial of his motions for judgment of acquittal and motion in arrest of
judgment.
IV. Admissibility of the Evidence.
Hommer challenged the admission of the NPLEx records in a motion in
limine, arguing the records are an investigative report for law enforcement and
therefore exempt from the hearsay exception for public records provided in Iowa
Rule of Evidence 5.803(8). He raised the issue again in a motion for new trial
and now advances this argument on appeal.3
We review a hearsay ruling for the correction of errors at law. State v.
Dudley, 856 N.W.2d 668, 675 (Iowa 2014). If hearsay evidence was admitted,
we will reverse because the admission of hearsay evidence is considered
prejudicial unless the contrary is shown. Id.A pharmacy is required by both federal and state law to obtain
identification information and a signature from anyone purchasing
pseudoephedrine. See 21 U.S.C. § 830(e)(1)(A)(iv); Iowa Code § 124.212A(2),
(3), (4). In addition, the purchaser’s name and address, the date and time of
purchase, and the name of the pseudoephedrine product purchased and quantity
3
In his motion for new trial, Hommer asserted the court erred in admitting the NPLEx
records as business records, asserting instead that they were investigative reports “as
law enforcement tools” and were thereby excluded from the public records exception
under rule 5.803(8)(b)(i)-(iv). In a companion case, State v. Burgdorf, 861 N.W.2d 273,
276-78 (Iowa 2014), the issue on appeal was whether sufficient foundation had been laid
for the district court to admit the NPLEx records as business records. We found there
was not, and reversed and remanded for new trial.
15
sold must be recorded in the electronic logbook. See 21 U.S.C.
§ 830(e)(1)(A)(iii); Iowa Code § 124.212A(5).
The trial court found the NPLEx records fall under the business record
exception to the hearsay rule. This exception applies to
[a] memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form,
of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near
the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with
knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business
activity, and the regular practice of that business activity was to
make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as
shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness,
or by certification that complies with rule 5.902(11), rule 5.902(12),
or a statute permitting certification, unless the source of information
or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of
trustworthiness.
Iowa R. Evid. 5.803(6). Here, the records are maintained by a business—in this
case, a pharmacy. The NPLEx records the event of a person purchasing a
pseudoephedrine product and are made at the time of the event by a person with
knowledge of the event. Finally, these records are kept in the course of regularly
conducted business activity, as required by law. Therefore, the NPLEx records
fall within the definition of a business record set forth in rule 5.803(6).
Hommer argues the NPLEx records more appropriately fall under the
public records exception set forth in rule 5.803(8). Specifically, he contends the
NPLEx records are inadmissible as exempt public records under rule
5.803(8)(B). In order to qualify as a public record under this rule, the evidence in
question must be “records, reports, statements, or data compilations of a public
office or agency.” Iowa R. Evid. 5.803(8)(A). While the records may be released
to law enforcement as set forth in Iowa Administrative Code rule 657-100.4(124),
they are not compiled by law enforcement or any public office or agency.
16
Because the records do not fall under the definition set forth in rule 5.803(8)(A),
they cannot fall under the exemptions set forth in rule 5.803(8)(B) as Hommer
argues.
Because the NPLEx records are admissible under the business records
exception to the hearsay rule, we affirm the trial court’s evidentiary ruling
admitting the records into evidence.
V. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.
Finally, Hommer contends he received ineffective assistance of trial
counsel. In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a
defendant must show that as a matter of law, trial counsel failed to perform an
essential duty and prejudice resulted. State v. Taylor, 689 N.W.2d 116, 134
(Iowa 2004). We will affirm a conviction if the record is adequate for us to
determine the defendant is unable to establish both a breach of duty and
prejudice. Id. In order to prevail on the prejudice prong of this test, a defendant
“must show there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s
unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984).
Hommer’s ineffective-assistance claims are based upon his counsel’s
handling of evidence of a prior conviction for conspiracy to manufacture
methamphetamine. Specifically, Hommer argues counsel was ineffective by
allowing and discussing evidence of his prior conviction for conspiracy to
manufacture methamphetamine. He also argues counsel was ineffective by
failing to request the jury be instructed that his prior conviction for possession of
methamphetamine could only be used to determine his credibility as a witness.
17
The State argues Hommer is unable to show counsel breached an
essential duty regarding the evidence of his prior conviction because counsel
made a strategic decision to discuss Hommer’s past. The State further argues it
is “possible” counsel chose not to emphasize the prior convictions by requesting
the jury be given a limiting instruction.
Our supreme court has often stated its preference for reserving questions
of ineffective assistance of counsel for postconviction-relief proceedings to allow
trial counsel to defend against the charge. See, e.g., State v. McNeal, 867
N.W.2d 91, 105 (Iowa 2015). “This is especially appropriate when the
challenged actions concern trial strategy or tactics counsel could explain if a
record were fully developed to address those issues.” Id. at 105-06. We will only
resolve such claims on direct appeal in the rare event the trial record alone is
sufficient to allow us to determine the merits of the claim. Id. at 106. Because
the record before us is inadequate to reach the merits of Hommer’s claims of
ineffective assistance, we preserve them for possible postconviction-relief
proceedings.
AFFIRMED.