Anthony Eugene Hawkins, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa ( 2016 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-2186
Filed December 21, 2016
ANTHONY EUGENE HAWKINS,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Marlita A. Greve,
Judge.
Applicant appeals the district court decision denying his request for
postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
Lauren M. Phelps, Washington, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
Anthony Hawkins appeals the district court decision denying his request
for postconviction relief. Hawkins’s claim that defense counsel should have
requested an accomplice instruction was addressed in his direct appeal, and it
will not be considered in this postconviction action. We find Hawkins has not
shown he received ineffective assistance due to defense counsel’s failure to
vigorously cross-examine the State’s witnesses. We affirm the decision of the
district court.
Hawkins was convicted of first-degree robbery, felon in possession of a
firearm, and trafficking in stolen weapons. His convictions were affirmed on
appeal. State v. Hawkins, No. 11-0490, 2012 WL 170647, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App.
Jan. 19, 2012). The facts of the case are set out in our decision above, and we
will not repeat them here. See id. at *1.
One of the issues addressed on appeal was whether “[Hawkins’s] trial
attorney was ineffective in failing to request an instruction requiring corroboration
of [an accomplice’s] testimony.” Id. at *2. We discussed evidence corroborating
the witness’s testimony and determined, “In light of this corroborating evidence,
the failure of Hawkins’s attorney to request an accomplice corroboration
instruction did not result in Strickland prejudice, and Hawkins’s ineffective-
assistance-of-counsel claim necessarily fails.” Id. In his application for
postconviction relief, Hawkins again claimed he received ineffective assistance
because defense counsel did not request an accomplice instruction. This issue
was resolved in the direct appeal, and we will not discuss it further in this action
for postconviction relief. See Iowa Code § 822.8 (2013).
3
Hawkins also claims he received ineffective assistance because defense
counsel did not vigorously cross-examine the State’s witnesses or impeach them
with deposition testimony. He states, “Trial counsel certainly cross-examined
during trial, but [Hawkins] alleges his cross-examination of several witnesses fell
short.” Hawkins states defense counsel did not adequately highlight the
discrepancies in the testimony of several witnesses.
We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. State v.
Gaskins, 866 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 2015). “To prevail on a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel, the claimant must show counsel failed to perform an
essential duty and prejudice resulted.” State v. Ary, 877 N.W.2d 686, 705 (Iowa
2016).
The district court found defense counsel “did vigorously cross-examine the
main witnesses in this matter” and “repeatedly pointed out inconsistencies
between the various witnesses’ testimony.” The court concluded Hawkins did not
establish defense counsel failed to perform an essential duty or he was
prejudiced by counsel’s performance. We agree with the district court’s
conclusions. The record shows defense counsel adequately cross-examined the
witnesses and pointed out the inconsistencies in their testimony. We determine
Hawkins has failed to show he received ineffective assistance based on his claim
defense counsel should have “more vigorously” cross-examined the State’s
witnesses.
A full opinion in this case would not augment or clarify existing case law.
See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(e). We affirm the decision of the district court.
AFFIRMED.