IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 12-1972
Filed April 30, 2014
RICHARD LEROY PARKER,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Lawrence H.
Fautsch (pretrial rulings) and Michael J. Shubatt (trial), Judges.
Richard Parker appeals from the denial of his application for
postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
Steven J. Drahozal of Drahozal Law Office, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sheryl A. Soich, Assistant Attorney
General, Ralph Potter, County Attorney, and Christine O. Corken, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and McDonald, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, J.
Richard Parker appeals from the denial of his application for
postconviction relief in which he raised claims of ineffective assistance of trial
counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. While Parker raised other issues at his
postconviction trial, on appeal he challenges the district court’s rulings
concerning his Brady claims and the court’s refusal to require the withdrawal of
the State’s attorney. Because we find Parker has failed to establish either a
Brady violation or ineffective assistance of counsel, and we find no error in the
court’s denial of Parker’s motion to disqualify the prosecutor, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
At Parker’s criminal trial for second-degree robbery, there was testimony
that DNA tests were conducted from swabs taken from a car used during the
robbery. The car was a stolen vehicle. The evidence elicited at the criminal trial
was that test results were not available until just before trial, and the swabs only
provided partial DNA profiles. Defense counsel cross-examined law enforcement
officers and argued strenuously that no DNA connected Parker to the vehicle.
Parker testified in his own defense. He was convicted of second-degree robbery.
On direct appeal, this court remanded for a new trial because evidence of
Parker’s prior drug convictions was improperly admitted. See State v. Parker,
No. 05-0588, 2007 WL 465655, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2007).
On further review, the Iowa Supreme Court vacated this court’s decision
and affirmed Parker’s conviction. State v. Parker, 747 N.W.2d 196, 213 (Iowa
2008). The supreme court summarized the evidence presented at trial:
3
Richard Parker was convicted by a jury of second-degree
robbery and sentenced as an habitual offender. The crime involved
a bank robbery that took place at American Trust and Savings Bank
in Dubuque shortly after 3 p.m. on July 14, 2004. The evidence at
trial was sufficient to establish that Parker entered the bank,
handed a bank teller a note, and demanded money. The teller
described Parker as a black man wearing a hat, wig, and latex
gloves, with a distinctive mark on his cheek. She gave Parker
money from the counter drawer, which he placed in a black bag
with green lettering on it.
The branch manager of the bank witnessed the robbery from
her office. She observed the robber leave the bank, enter a blue
Chevrolet Celebrity four-door sedan, and drive away. She recorded
the make, model, and license plate number of the vehicle.
A customer located at the drive-through area of the bank
recognized the situation as a robbery and attempted to follow the
blue getaway vehicle. His pursuit, however, was short-lived. Just
as the customer pulled out of the drive-through area of the bank, a
red Chevrolet Blazer pulled out in front of him and impeded his
travel. The driver of the red Blazer then removed the keys of the
vehicle from the ignition and exited her vehicle. Consequently, the
customer’s pursuit ended almost as quickly as it began.
A short time later, law enforcement officers stopped a red
Blazer driven by Inger Hall-Smith. A package of latex gloves
similar to the gloves worn by the robber was found in the vehicle.
During the stop, Hall-Smith was questioned by an officer about her
role in obstructing the pursuit by the customer. Hall-Smith
responded by describing the event as a “bank robbery,” even
though the officer had not referred to the incident as a bank
robbery.
Sometime prior to 4 p.m., a Dubuque homeowner was
mowing her lawn when Parker drove by in a vehicle matching the
description of the getaway car. He stopped to ask for directions out
of the subdivision in which the homeowner resided. There was only
one road in and out of the subdivision, and the homeowner gave
Parker the directions. The homeowner noticed a dark mark on
Parker’s face.
Shortly before 4 p.m., a man who lived on a farm outside of
Dubuque noticed Parker near a disabled blue car on the side of the
road near his farm. The car had steam coming from the engine.
Parker approached the farmer and asked for a ride. The farmer
declined to help. However, another man driving a truck soon came
upon the scene and gave Parker a ride into Dubuque. The driver of
the truck noticed the man had makeup on his face and carried a
black bag with green lettering.
Later that afternoon, police located the blue Celebrity
getaway vehicle near the farm outside of Dubuque. They also
4
found a marked $100 bill from American Trust and Savings Bank
inside the vehicle.
On the evening of August 26, approximately six weeks
following the robbery, Parker appeared unannounced at the
Waterloo residence of James Hall, Jr., an attorney and brother of
Hall–Smith, the driver of the red Blazer who prevented the witness
from pursuing Parker as he drove away from the bank. Hall was
acquainted with Parker and was aware his sister had been arrested
for her participation in the robbery. Hall had represented Parker in
the past regarding some speeding violations.
During the course of the evening of socialization and
conversation, Parker detailed his participation in the bank robbery
to Hall and apologized for involving Hall’s sister. He also told Hall
he had committed other bank robberies in the past and had plans to
rob a bank in Chicago. Parker also made other incriminating
statements.
Parker spent the night at Hall’s house. The next day, Hall left
his house and informed police that Parker could be found at his
residence. He told police that Parker was not his client. Parker
was subsequently arrested by police at Hall’s residence.
....
At trial, the various witnesses to the facts and circumstances
surrounding the robbery testified. The bank teller, the homeowner
who was mowing the lawn, and the Good Samaritan truck driver all
positively identified Parker. Hall also testified to the incriminating
statements made by Parker.
Parker testified in his defense and advanced an alibi
defense. He claimed he was in Chicago visiting his family on the
day of the bank robbery. Parker also testified during direct
examination, without elaboration, that he had never been charged
with the crimes of theft, robbery, or burglary. No family members
testified in support of his alibi.
On cross-examination, the State elicited from Parker that he
had actually been charged with first-degree burglary in 1993. After
Parker explained the offense involved an incident in which he broke
the window of a vehicle, the prosecutor asked if he had any other
convictions on his record.
Id. at 200-02. Despite a “prompt objection by Parker’s attorney,” the district court
allowed the prosecutor to elicit from Parker he had two prior drug convictions. Id.
at 202.
The supreme court found the State was permitted to impeach Parker by
asking about his prior charge for burglary. Id. at 207. However, the prior drug
5
convictions were improperly admitted because the questions about those
charges were beyond the scope of direct examination. Id. at 208. Nonetheless,
the court affirmed Parker’s conviction finding the error was harmless because the
conviction “was clearly based on overwhelming evidence of Parker’s guilt.” Id. at
210.
Parker filed an application for postconviction relief (PCR) asserting
numerous claims of prosecutorial misconduct and of ineffective assistance of trial
counsel. Parker asserted a lab report prepared on December 4, 2004—two days
before trial was to begin—excluded him as a contributor of DNA in the stolen car.
He asserted this evidence was suppressed by the criminal trial prosecutor. He
also contended his criminal trial counsel was ineffective in failing to properly
investigate the DNA evidence.1
The district court denied the application for PCR and Parker appeals.
II. Scope and Standard of Review.
“We typically review postconviction relief proceedings on error. However,
when the applicant asserts claims of a constitutional nature, our review is de
novo. Thus, we review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. In
1
Parker also asserted his criminal trial counsel was ineffective in not objecting to the in-
court identification of him made by three prosecution witnesses; allowing improper photo
identification by the same three witnesses; failing to object to questioning that violated a
pre-trial motion in limine; failing to move for a mistrial; failing to object to the use of the
hat with dreadlocks; failing to impeach Officer Baxter concerning the warrant application;
failing to call alibi witnesses; failing to investigate the DNA evidence collected by the
State; and failing to otherwise properly prepare for trial by deposing witnesses,
investigating Parker’s criminal background, and other matters. He also raised several
claims of prosecutorial misconduct, including that the assistant county attorney who
prosecuted him engaged in a discovery violation concerning a hat with dreadlocks that
was introduced during Parker’s cross-examination at his criminal trial; misrepresented
facts on a warrant application; and failed to inform the defense that a witness recanted
his statements incriminating Parker. This appeal, however, focuses only on the lab
report that allegedly was not provided to the defense.
6
addition, we give weight to the lower court’s findings concerning witness
credibility.” Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134, 141 (Iowa 2001) (citations
omitted).
III. Discussion.
After a two-day trial on the PCR application, the district court issued its
ruling denying relief. In its ruling, the district court indicated Parker could not
litigate his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims in the postconviction
proceeding because other ineffectiveness claims were decided on direct appeal.
This ruling is contrary to statutory and case law. See Iowa Code § 814.7; State
v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192, 198 (Iowa 2010); accord State v. Clark, 814
N.W.2d 551, 567 (Iowa 2012). However, the district court, in fact, went on to
consider each of Parker’s ineffectiveness claims raised in his postconviction
application “for the purpose of judicial efficiency” and rejected them. We do not
reach the claims presented to the postconviction court but not argued on appeal,
finding those claims have been waived. See Hyler v. Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864,
876 (Iowa 1996) (“[W]e will not speculate on the arguments [the appellant] might
have made and then search for legal authority and comb the record for facts to
support such arguments.”); see also Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3) (requiring an
appellate brief to “contain the appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them
with citations to the authorities relied on” and stating “[f]ailure to cite authority in
support of an issue may be deemed waiver of that issue”).
Addressing the crux of Parker’s claim concerning the DNA report, the
court concluded:
7
The prosecutorial misconduct claims fail on their merits.
Parker’s first complaint is that Assistant County Attorney Corken
somehow violated his rights by withholding DNA evidence. The
evidence in question was a lab test that admittedly was not
completed and produced to the State until shortly before the trial.
The test, which was based on partial DNA samples obtained from a
car Parker was alleged to have driven, excluded Parker as a match
for those samples. Defense counsel Paul Jensen testified at trial
and in his deposition . . . that he believed he was told about the
DNA results prior to trial. The Court does not consider this to be
prosecutorial misconduct, even if the required written notice was
not served. Even if it was misconduct, the Court fails to see the
prejudice to Parker. There was no DNA evidence connecting him
to the car in question. His attorney pointed that fact out to the jury.
The added value (if any) of the test excluding him would have been
negligible at best, particularly in light of the overwhelming evidence
against Parker.
The district court specifically found Attorney Jensen’s testimony to be credible.
A. Brady violation.2 Upon our de novo review, we, too, conclude Parker
has failed to establish a Brady violation. The essence of Parker’s claim is that
while his counsel argued there was no DNA evidence connecting him to the car
used in the robbery, he was not able to take full advantage of the DNA lab report.
That lab report stated in part: “DNA analysis performed on swab B2 developed a
partial profile. . . . RICHARD PARKER (A) is eliminated as a possible contributor
to this partial profile (B2). DNA analysis was unsuccessfully attempted on the
remaining three swabs.” He contends his defense would have been stronger had
he been able to assert he was eliminated as a contributor to DNA in the car,
rather than that no DNA connected him to the car.
2
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (holding “the suppression by the
prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process
where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good
faith or bad faith of the prosecution”).
8
“To establish a Brady violation has occurred, [the claimant] must prove by
a preponderance of the evidence (1) the prosecution suppressed evidence;
(2) the evidence was favorable to the defendant; and (3) the evidence was
material to the issue of guilt.” DeSimone v. State, 803 N.W.2d 97, 103 (Iowa
2011) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). While the prosecutor has
a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to those acting on the
government’s behalf in the case, evidence is not considered suppressed if the
defendant either knew or should have known of the essential facts permitting him
to take advantage of the evidence. Id.
Due process is only denied when the favorable, suppressed
evidence is material to the issue of guilt. The Supreme Court
stated evidence is material when “there is a reasonable probability
that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of
the proceeding would have been different. A ‘reasonable
probability’ is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the
outcome.”
Id. at 105 (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985)).
Here, Parker’s defense attorney testified at the PCR trial he had been
informed by the assistant county attorney that the DNA analysis had been
completed and no DNA connected Parker to the vehicle used in the robbery.
Because evidence is not considered suppressed if the defendant either knew or
should have known of the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of the
evidence, here there is no evidence “suppressed.” See State v. Clark, 814
N.W.2d 551, 563 (Iowa 2012).
Moreover, unlike the situation in DeSimone, 803 N.W.2d at 105, where the
undisclosed evidence undermined the minimal evidence supporting the
9
conviction, we are not convinced the lab report undermines confidence in the
outcome.
Parker was positively identified as the bank robber by the
bank teller, and two witnesses positively identified him as driving
the getaway car during his circuitous escape from the bank. Money
from the bank was also found in the car. Although Parker
attempted to disguise his appearance during the robbery, none of
the witnesses had any difficulty identifying him as the bank robber
and driver of the getaway car. Moreover, Parker admitted to [Hall
that he committed the robbery. Additionally, he failed to produce
any witness to corroborate his alibi defense.
Parker, 747 N.W.2d at 210. That his DNA was excluded from DNA found in a
stolen car—especially where there was evidence the robber was wearing
gloves—does not undermine our confidence of the outcome of the case.
B. Ineffective assistance of counsel. As for Parker’s ineffectiveness claim,
Parker must establish both that (1) trial counsel failed in an essential duty and
(2) prejudice resulted. Ledezma, 626 N.W.2d at 142. We presume the attorney
performed competently. Id. “[I]neffective assistance is more likely to be
established when the alleged actions or inactions of counsel are attributed to a
lack of diligence as opposed to the exercise of judgment.” Id. “Counsel is
required to conduct a reasonable investigation or make reasonable decisions that
make a particular investigation unnecessary.” Id. at 145.
As noted above, Attorney Jensen testified he was informed the lab results
of DNA swabs taken from the get-away vehicle did not implicate Parker.
Attorney Jensen did not remember if he received the report prior to trial. Jensen
testified he did not do an independent investigation of the DNA “because it
showed that there was no DNA evidence that connected [Parker] to the car.”
Parker (who represented himself at the PCR proceeding) asked why Jensen
10
would not conduct his own analysis and Jensen responded, “[W]hen a defense
attorney gets a DNA report and the report says that it cannot connect his client
up with a car, that’s good for my client. No, I’m not going to investigate that
further.” We cannot say this strategy was unreasonable.
C. Removal of State’s attorney. Before the PCR trial, Parker filed a
motion to disqualify and remove the prosecutor on the ground he wanted to
depose her to attempt to gain evidence in support of his PCR application. The
postconviction court denied his application to disqualify the prosecutor. Parker
was denied permission to seek interlocutory appeal. Parker, acting as his own
attorney, deposed his trial counsel. Attorney Jensen testified he received a
telephone call from the assistant county attorney prior to trial informing him of the
substance of the DNA report—no DNA connected Parker to the car. He could
not recall if he had received the lab report. This deposition testimony is
consistent with the prosecutor’s professional statement to the district court.
While we are not convinced that Ms. Corken could not have been deposed,
Parker has not shown he was prejudiced by not being able to depose her.
Moreover, Parker did not attempt to call Ms. Corken to testify. We find no error in
the court’s denial of Parker’s motion to disqualify her. Cf. State v. King, 256 N.W.
1, 15 (Iowa 1977) (“Although a prosecutor should withdraw upon finding it
necessary to testify on behalf of the State, he has no such duty when called as a
defense witness.”); accord State v. Fitz, 256 N.W.2d 896, 901 (Iowa 1978).
We therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED.