IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-1532
Filed July 22, 2015
LONNIE BATES JR.,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mary E. Howes,
Judge.
An applicant appeals the district court’s denial of his application for
postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
Thomas J. OʼFlaherty of OʼFlaherty Law Firm, Bettendorf, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney
General, Michael J. Walton, County Attorney, and Melisa Zaehringer, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.
2
VOGEL, P.J.
Lonnie Bates filed an application for postconviction relief (PCR), asserting
among other claims, his trial counsel was ineffective in not obtaining a DNA
sample from other potential suspects for use in his defense. The district court
rejected this claim, affirming Bates’s conviction. Bates appeals claiming the
district court made an error in the factual findings in its ruling. Upon our de novo
review of the record, we conclude the factual error made by the court did not
affect the court’s decision. We agree with the court’s conclusion that Bates failed
to prove his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when she did not seek
to obtain DNA samples from other potential suspects.
Following a jury trial, Bates was convicted of second-degree sexual
abuse. State v. Bates, No. 10-1666, 2012 WL 3027122, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. July
25, 2012). The facts of the assault are adequately outlined in the direct appeal
decision, and there is no need repeat them here. See id. After his conviction
was affirmed, Bates filed an application for postconviction relief alleging a
number of ways that his attorney was ineffective, including a claim his trial
attorney should have obtained DNA samples from the other adults who were
present at the scene when the assault took place. The testimony at trial and the
testimony developed at the PCR hearing established that DNA testing was done
on the victim’s clothing and body, and on Bates’s clothing. The testing did not
reveal any foreign DNA on either the victim or Bates. All testing done on the
3
victim’s clothing and body showed only the presence of the victim’s DNA.1 All
testing done on Bates’s clothing showed only the presence of Bates’s DNA.
In the factual findings made by the PCR court, the court stated that
Bates’s attorney testified there was DNA from Bates on the victim. While this
was an inaccurate statement of the attorney’s testimony in the PCR hearing, the
court went on to accurately state that the attorney also testified at the PCR
hearing there was no foreign DNA on the victim that was not identified. Because
of the lack of foreign DNA in the record, the PCR court concluded “it would have
been a pointless tactic in any event” to request DNA testing of the other adults at
the scene.
Our review of a postconviction-relief action alleging ineffective assistance
of counsel is de novo. See Dempsey v. State, 860 N.W.2d 860, 868 (Iowa
2015). We make our own independent evaluation of the totality of the relevant
circumstances, though we do give deference to the district court’s credibility
assessments. Taylor v. State, 352 N.W.2d 683, 684, 687 (Iowa 1984). In a de
novo review, we carefully scrutinize the record and make our own findings of fact.
See Soults Farms, Inc. v. Schafer, 797 N.W.2d 92, 97 (Iowa 2011). Thus, we
need not reverse and remand for a new PCR hearing based solely on errors in
the factual findings of the district court’s decision. Any errors can be adequately
addressed on appeal without the need for a remand.
1
We do note a sample taken from the victim’s fingernail scrapings showed DNA that
was too weak for a conclusive determination other than it was DNA from a male.
Because the sample was too weak, it could not have been tested to determine if it
matched other known DNA samples even if those samples had been obtained
4
In order to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Bates
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence counsel breached an essential
duty and he suffered prejudice as a result. Taylor, 352 N.W.2d at 685. The facts
developed at trial and at the PCR hearing establish there was no foreign DNA
found on either the victim or Bates. Thus, obtaining DNA samples from the other
adults who were present at the scene of the assault would have been a fruitless
exercise. There was no unidentified DNA to which the known samples from the
other adults could have been compared. Because obtaining the samples would
not have affected the outcome of the trial, Bates cannot prove he was prejudiced
by counsel’s inaction. See Dempsey, 860 N.W.2d at 868 (noting we need not
address both elements of the ineffective-assistance test as a defendant’s failure
to establish either element is fatal to the claim).
AFFIRMED.