IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-2001
Filed August 16, 2017
MICAH SHERIF MATTHEWS,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Paul L. Macek,
Judge.
Micah Matthews appeals from the district court’s denial of his application
for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Meyer, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2
MULLINS, Presiding Judge.
Micah Matthews appeals from the district court’s denial of his application
for postconviction relief (PCR), asserting numerous claims of ineffective
assistance of trial, appellate, and PCR counsel. We generally review PCR
proceedings for correction of errors at law. Nguyen v. State, 878 N.W.2d 744,
750 (Iowa 2016). However, when an applicant raises constitutional claims, such
as claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we apply a de novo review. See
id.; Bonilla v. State, 791 N.W.2d 697, 699 (Iowa 2010).
On February 20, 2008, the State charged Matthews by trial information
with first-degree kidnapping, a class “A” felony; second-degree kidnapping, a
class “B” felony; first-degree sexual abuse, a class “A” felony; and first-degree
burglary, a class “B” felony. Matthews waived his right to a jury trial, and trial to
the bench commenced on February 17, 2009. The district court convicted
Matthews of first-degree kidnapping, second-degree kidnapping, and first-degree
burglary after finding the charge of first-degree sexual abuse was a lesser-
included offense of first-degree kidnapping and merging the two offenses. The
court sentenced Matthews to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the
crime of kidnapping in the first degree, plus two twenty-five-year terms of
incarceration for the crimes of kidnapping in the second degree and burglary in
the first degree, all to run consecutively. Matthews appealed, and we affirmed
his convictions and sentences. See generally State v. Matthews, No. 09-0743,
2010 WL 3894455 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2010).
On February 17, 2011, Matthews filed a pro se application for PCR. The
court appointed Matthews counsel, followed by a succession of several
3
appointed counsel. Matthews subsequently amended his application several
times and submitted exhibits and a pro se pretrial memorandum. The district
court dismissed Matthews’s application on November 12, 2015.
Matthews appeals, arguing his trial counsel rendered ineffective
assistance in failing to: (1) properly challenge the sufficiency of the evidence of
the specific intent and confinement or removal elements of the charge of first-
degree kidnapping, (2) investigate or consult with medical experts regarding the
State’s evidence showing serious injury, (3) object to hearsay statements made
to the sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE), (4) improperly agreeing to admit
the deposition testimony of the emergency room doctor and effectively waiving
his right to confront the witness at trial, (5) request a jury instruction on
kidnapping for ransom as an alternative theory for second-degree kidnapping, (6)
file a motion in arrest of judgment, (7) investigate his prior association with the
complaining witness, (8) investigate a possible intoxication defense, and (9)
impeach witnesses who claimed they saw Matthews in possession of a gun prior
to the assault. He further complains his appellate counsel provided ineffective
assistance in failing to raise the above issues and raise claims the trial court
abused its discretion and improperly weighed the evidence. Additionally, he
claims the cumulative errors of his trial and appellate counsel warrant a new trial.
Matthews admits his claim regarding the sufficiency of the evidence of
confinement or removal was not addressed in the PCR court’s order. Matthews
failed to file a motion to amend or enlarge the court’s findings pursuant to Iowa
Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2); thus, error has not been preserved on this
issue. See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 539 (Iowa 2002) (finding a rule
4
1.904(2) motion is “necessary to preserve error ‘when the district court fails to
resolve an issue, claim, or other legal theory properly submitted for adjudication’”
(citation omitted)).
Matthews also admits his claim that trial counsel provided ineffective
assistance by failing to object to the inadmissible hearsay testimony of the SANE
nurse who examined the complaining witness after the kidnapping and assault
was not raised before the PCR court.1 Thus, Matthews recognizes this issue has
not been preserved for our review and argues PCR counsel rendered ineffective
assistance in failing to raise the claim below. Matthews also argues PCR
counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to obtain and consult a medical
expert with regard to his complaints surrounding the serious-injury element of the
charges of first-degree kidnapping and first-degree sexual abuse.
“Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are an exception to the
traditional error-preservation rules.” State v. Fountain, 786 N.W.2d 260, 263
(Iowa 2010). To succeed on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim,
Matthews must prove “by a preponderance of the evidence: ‘(1) his trial counsel
failed to perform an essential duty, and (2) this failure resulted in prejudice.’”
State v. Thorndike, 860 N.W.2d 316, 320 (Iowa 2015) (quoting State v. Adams,
810 N.W.2d 365, 372 (Iowa 2012)); accord Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 687 (1984). Failure to prove either prong is fatal to the claim. See Everett
v. State, 789 N.W.2d 151, 159 (Iowa 2010). In examining Matthews’s claims, we
1
Matthews framed this issue before the PCR court as one of trial counsel’s failure to
object to prosecutorial misconduct for presenting false evidence. The PCR court
addressed the issue as Matthews framed it to the court and denied the claim.
5
presume counsel performed his or her duties competently. See Thorndike, 860
N.W.2d at 320.
We conclude Matthews has failed to prove a reasonable probability that,
without any alleged errors of trial, appellate, or PCR counsel, “the result of the
proceeding[s] would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. Thus, he
cannot show he was prejudiced by any alleged failure of counsel. See id.; see
also Everett, 789 N.W.2d at 159.
Furthermore, the record clearly shows Matthews broke into a woman’s
home, held her at gun point, demanded money, and threatened to sexually
assault her. When the woman told Matthews she did not have cash at home, he
forced her to drive to a nearby bank. The woman was unsuccessful in her
attempts to withdraw money, and Matthews ordered her to drive back to her
home. Once at home, the woman attempted to escape by running into her house
and locking the door. Matthews kicked the door in, grabbed her, and told her to
go to her bedroom. She refused, and Matthews hit her on the head with his gun.
The woman lost consciousness; when she regained consciousness, Matthews
was sexually assaulting her, and she passed out again. Before he left, Matthews
gagged the woman and bound her hands and feet. When she woke up again,
she freed herself and called the police. She was taken to the hospital where a
SANE nurse performed an examination and collected evidence later used to
develop a DNA profile of the perpetrator. The DNA profile obtained from the
sexual assault examination matched Matthews’s DNA profile. Further, a DNA
profile obtained from the woman’s bindings also matched Matthews’s profile.
Based on these facts, we find the record contains overwhelming evidence of
6
Matthews’s guilt in this vicious attack. See Boose v. State, No. 13-1130, 2014
WL 7343218, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 24, 2014) (applying the “overwhelming
evidence” standard cited in State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185, 197 (Iowa 2008),
to the applicant’s ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim in a PCR action).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Matthews’s PCR
application.
AFFIRMED.