IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-0695
Filed February 22, 2017
MICHAEL WAYNE REED,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert,
Judge.
Applicant appeals the district court’s denial of his application for
postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
On October 9, 2013, Michael Wayne Reed pled guilty to intimidation with a
dangerous weapon, in violation of Iowa Code section 708.6 (2013). He did not
appeal his conviction. Reed filed an application for postconviction relief on
March 27, 2015, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The application was
denied, and Reed appeals.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are reviewed de novo.
Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134, 141 (Iowa 2001). “To prevail on a claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel, the [defendant] must demonstrate both
ineffective assistance and prejudice.” Id. at 142. “If the claim lacks prejudice, it
can be decided on that ground alone without deciding whether the attorney
performed deficiently.” Id. Both elements must be proved by a preponderance of
the evidence. Jones v. State, 479 N.W.2d 265, 272 (Iowa 1991). Regarding
prejudice, “the proper standard requires the defendant to show that there is a
reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of
the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a
probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 669 (1984).
Reed claims he would have gone to trial if his trial counsel had obtained
the video from police squad cars at the scene of his arrest and his trial counsel
was ineffective for failing to obtain the video. Reed claims during the standoff
leading to his arrest the police fired on him first and he returned fire in
self-defense. He acknowledges none of the squad cars were in position to film
3
the actual incident but claims the audio would have provided proof as to which
weapon was used first.
However, Reed explicitly waived his right to a self-defense claim during
entry of his plea:
DISTRICT COURT: You understand, Mr. Reed, that your
lawyer has informed the Court that if this case went to trial, there
are several defenses that she might raise on your behalf. One is
. . . that you were acting in self-defense when you fired the
weapon. . . . This, however, is the key: If you plead guilty, you are
waiving or giving up any right to ever claim that you were acting in
self-defense.
DEFENDANT: Yes, sir, I do.
Additionally, Reed’s trial counsel formally requested the squad car videos but did
not receive them. Further, Reed stated he would most likely “have accepted the
guilty plea, simply for the shorter sentence” if the video had been located and the
evidence within was inconclusive. Reed also specifically admitted he used the
gun to intimidate the officers. He testified, “I picked up a shotgun and aimed it in
the direction of one or more than one persons . . . . And the purpose of doing
that was to intimidate them . . . .” Finally, Reed does not know what the video
contained as it no longer exists.
Reed is unable to establish trial counsel was ineffective, as the videos
were formally requested even though counsel did not receive them. Reed is also
unable to establish prejudice as he waived his self-defense claim, formally
admitted to the conduct in open court, and stated he would have pled guilty if the
evidence had been inconclusive. Finally, Reed cannot establish the content of
the video and, as a result, cannot prove by a preponderance of the evidence the
4
result would have been different. Pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(a), (d),
and (e), we affirm the district court.
AFFIRMED.