IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-0819
Filed August 17, 2016
DWAYNE WILLIAMS,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David P.
Odekirk, Judge.
Applicant appeals the district court decision denying his application for
postconviction relief from his conviction for first-degree robbery. AFFIRMED.
Roman Vald of LaMarca Law Group, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., McDonald, J., and Goodhue, S.J.
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2015).
2
GOODHUE, Senior Judge.
Dwayne Williams has appealed from the denial of his application for
postconviction relief.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
A jury found Williams guilty of robbery in the first degree in June 2010.
Williams appealed the verdict, but his conviction was affirmed, and procedendo
issued on February 3, 2012. See State v. Williams, No. 10-1254, 2011 WL
5394366, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2011). Williams filed for postconviction
relief, but his application was summarily denied. On February 14, 2014, Williams
filed this, his second request for postconviction relief. Williams predicates his
claim on ineffective assistance of trial counsel, appellate counsel, and his first
postconviction relief counsel. His claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
relate to pretrial procedural errors, allegations of forgery and falsification of court
documents and records, and deliberate denial by authorities of access to the
records he asserts would establish the procedural errors on which he relies in
this proceeding.
II. Preservation of Error
Error is generally considered preserved when the issue to be decided has
been raised and ruled on by the district court. Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d
532, 537 (Iowa 2002). The State contends error has not been preserved and
Williams’s claims have been waived by operation of Iowa Code section 822.8
(2013). The cited section provides that, “All grounds for relief available to an
applicant under this chapter must be raised in the applicant’s original,
supplemental, or amended application.” Iowa Code § 822.8. However, the cited
3
section also provides an exception when “the court finds a ground for relief
asserted for which sufficient reason was not asserted or was inadequately raised
in the original, supplemental, or amended application.” Id. When the filing of a
request for postconviction relief is not barred by operation of Iowa Code section
822.3, ineffective assistance of counsel is sufficient reason for not having raised
an issue in either the direct appeal or on a prior postconviction action. Odem v.
State, 483 N.W.2d 17, 19 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992). All issues raised in the appeal
were raised before and ruled on by the trial court. Error has been preserved.
III. Standards of Review
An appeal from the denial of a postconviction relief application is ordinarily
reviewed for errors of law. Nguyen v. State, 878 N.W.2d 744, 750 (Iowa 2016).
However, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are reviewed de novo. Id.
IV. Discussion
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a claimant must
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) counsel failed to perform an
essential duty, and (2) prejudice resulted. Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134,
142 (Iowa 2001). A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must overcome the
presumption that counsel is competent. Taylor v. State, 352 N.W.2d 683, 685
(Iowa 1984). Counsel is not ineffective for failing to make a meritless claim.
State v. Brubaker, 805 N.W.2d 164, 171 (Iowa 2011).
Williams raised multiple pretrial issues not raised by his trial counsel,
appellate counsel, or first postconviction counsel. Williams contends that failing
to raise these issues constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. The issues
Williams now raises are primarily based on his contention the trial court and
4
prosecutor failed to follow our rules of civil procedure and, in a cover-up effort,
authorities forged or altered documents and failed to provide him the information
necessary to obtain the requested relief. His claims are as follows: (1) the trial
information that was the basis of his conviction had not been signed by the
prosecutor or approved by the court, in violation of Iowa Rule of Criminal
Procedure 2.5; (2) his waiver of his right to a preliminary hearing was not valid
because he was not represented by counsel at the time; (3) he was not formally
arraigned; (4) the State failed to file a trial information within forty-five days of his
arrest, violating his right to a speedy indictment under rule 2.33(2)(a); (5) trial
was not held within ninety days after the trial information was filed, in violation of
his rule 2.33(2)(b) right to speedy trial; (6) he was not brought to trial within one
year of the filing of the trial information, in violation of his right to a speedy trial
pursuant to rule 2.33(2)(c); (7) the clerk of court and the court itself failed to
provide him the documents necessary to prepare for this postconviction
proceeding; (8) court records have been forged, supplemented, or altered after
the fact to show compliance with the rules; (9) any waiver purporting to bear his
signature has been forged; and (10) the initial counsel in the postconviction
proceeding did not disclose a conflict of interest until eleven months after
representation began.
The trial court considered each of these allegations in some detail and
found that the assertions made under points (1), (3), and (4) are directly
contradicted by the court records. As to item (2), the trial information was filed
before the preliminary hearing, obviating the need for the hearing. See State v.
Petersen, 678 N.W.2d 611, 613 (Iowa 2004). Williams waived the speedy trial
5
rights claimed in items (5) and (6). There was no proof of claims (7), (8), and (9),
only Williams’s unsupported assertions. As to item (10), there was no showing of
the nature of the conflict, no explanation as to whether Williams is contending
counsel should not have withdrawn or should have withdrawn earlier, and no
showing of why or how the withdrawal prejudiced Williams in any way. In
summary, the only legal issues before us concern the burden of proof and
credibility, and no factual basis exists to support Williams’s claims except his own
assertions.
There is a presumption of credibility that attaches to a court file. Foster v.
State, 395 N.W.2d 637, 638 (Iowa 1986). We give weight to the trial court’s
factual findings, especially in the assessment of credibility. Ledezma, 626
N.W.2d at 141. The trial court did not find Williams’s testimony sufficiently
credible to overcome the presumption that attaches to the court record. The
burden to establish ineffective assistance of counsel as to both required
elements is on the applicant. Id. at 142. Williams has failed to meet that burden
as to either element. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.