IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-0991
Filed August 31, 2016
ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson,
Judge.
Applicant appeals the district court decision denying his request for
postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
Thomas A. Hurd of Law Office of Thomas Hurd, P.L.C., Des Moines, for
appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
Roberto Rodriguez appeals the district court decision denying his request
for postconviction relief. We find the district court properly granted summary
disposition to the State because the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
raised in this postconviction action were previously decided in Rodriguez’s direct
appeal. We affirm the district court.
After an evening of drinking alcohol and using drugs, Rodriguez and some
friends decided to drive around and look for people to beat up. One of the
victims, Dean Davis, died as a result of a stab wound. Rodriguez presented
defenses of identification and intoxication at his criminal trial. He was convicted
of first-degree murder, first-degree robbery, first-degree burglary, and second-
degree robbery.
In Rodriguez’s direct appeal we stated:
Rodriguez claims “[i]n light of the testimony of the witnesses
that defendant was intoxicated, it was error for counsel to fail to
present expert testimony regarding the defendant’s intoxication.”
However, Rodriguez does not set forth any argument concerning
what evidence an expert would have offered or how such testimony
would have made a difference at trial.
We note from our review of the trial record defense counsel
did present some testimony regarding defendant’s intoxication.
Counsel also asked the medical examiner several questions
regarding the effects of alcohol and marijuana.
....
In addition, the court submitted an intoxication instruction to
the jury. It is unclear what other evidence an expert could have
offered in support of Rodriguez’s intoxication defense.
There was also substantial evidence Rodriguez was not
severely intoxicated at the time of the crimes. According to the
testimony of several witnesses, Rodriguez admitted to stabbing
Davis. Several admissions were made in the days following the
incident. This testimony reveals that Rodriguez clearly had
memory of the incident and what happened. Had defense called an
3
expert on intoxication, Rodriguez fails to demonstrate it would have
made a difference in the outcome of the trial.
We also note Rodriguez’s main defense at trial was
identification, not intoxication. In fact, an intoxication defense
would have been at odds with his main defense of identity.
Rodriguez presented testimony Holland actually stabbed Davis. He
did not present evidence he stabbed Davis, but blacked out or did
not understand what he was doing. An intoxication defense admits
to the act, but negates whether the person acted with specific
intent. Rodriguez’s defense at trial was he did not commit the
offense.
“[A]n attorney’s decision regarding strategy or tactics does
not ordinarily provide an adequate basis for a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel.” When trial counsel acts reasonably in
selecting and following through on a chosen strategy, the claim of
ineffective assistance is without merit. Because we find defense
counsel acted reasonably in selecting a defense strategy and
Rodriguez failed to show he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to
call an expert on intoxication, we deny this claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel.
State v. Rodriguez, No. 10-0039, 2011 WL 1814707, at *6-7 (Iowa Ct. App.
May 11, 2011) (citations omitted).
On September 7, 2011, Rodriguez filed an application for postconviction
relief, claiming he received ineffective assistance because defense counsel did
not present the testimony of an expert witness to support his intoxication
defense. Rodriguez also stated he received ineffective assistance because
appellate counsel did not “provide the appellate court with any indication of what
information an expert witness would have provided or how this information would
have assisted the jury and affected the outcome of trial.” The State claimed the
issue had been fully addressed in the direct appeal and requested summary
disposition of the case.
A postconviction hearing was held on March 25, 2015. Rodriguez
presented the testimony of Dr. John Fell, an osteopathic physician, who made a
4
calculation of Rodriguez’s blood-alcohol content at the time of the offenses and
stated Rodriguez’s critical judgment and sensory perception would have been
impaired. At the close of Rodriguez’s evidence, the State moved for summary
disposition of the case.
The district court granted the motion for summary disposition.1 The court
found the issue raised by Rodriguez concerning his trial counsel was the same
as the issue decided in the direct appeal and could not be relitigated. The court
found Rodriguez failed to show he received ineffective assistance from appellate
counsel for the same reasons we previously found he failed to show he received
ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Rodriguez now appeals, claiming he
received ineffective assistance of counsel.
We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. Ennenga
v. State, 812 N.W.2d 696, 701 (Iowa 2012). To establish a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel, an applicant must show (1) the attorney failed to perform
an essential duty, and (2) prejudice resulted to the extent it denied the applicant
a fair trial. State v. Carroll, 767 N.W.2d 638, 641 (Iowa 2009).
The issue of whether Rodriguez received ineffective assistance because
defense counsel did not present the testimony of an expert witness to support his
defense of intoxication was addressed in the direct appeal. See Rodriguez, 2011
WL 1814707, at *6-7. An applicant may not use postconviction proceedings to
relitigate issues decided in a direct appeal. Snyder v. State, 262 N.W.2d 574,
1
The parties and the court referred to the State’s request as a motion for directed verdict
under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.945. We determine the motion is more properly
considered as a motion for summary disposition, as permitted by Iowa Code section
822.6 (2011).
5
578 (Iowa 1978). “A postconviction proceeding is not intended as a vehicle for
relitigation, on the same factual basis, of issues previously adjudicated, and the
principal of res judicata bars additional litigation on this point.” Holmes v. State,
775 N.W.2d 733, 735 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009). We determine the district court
properly concluded Rodriguez’s claim of ineffective assistance of defense
counsel should be dismissed.
Rodriguez also claims he received ineffective assistance because
appellate counsel raised the issue in the direct appeal, when he did not have
expert testimony to support his claims. In the direct appeal, we noted Rodriguez
did “not set forth any argument concerning what evidence an expert would have
offered or how such testimony would have made the difference at trial,” but this is
not the basis for our conclusion Rodriguez failed to show he received ineffective
assistance of counsel. Rodriguez, 2011 WL 1814707, at *7. We found, “Had
defense called an expert on intoxication, Rodriguez fails to demonstrate it would
have made a difference in the outcome of the trial.” Id. Once again, the main
thrust of Rodriguez’s defense was identification, which is quite different than an
intoxication defense. Because we found Rodriguez was not prejudiced by
counsel’s performance, Rodriguez was also not prejudiced by appellate
counsel’s decision to raise the issue on direct appeal. We conclude the district
court properly found Rodriguez’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate
counsel should be denied on the same grounds found in our earlier decision.
We affirm the decision of the district court.
AFFIRMED.