IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1659
Filed February 7, 2018
STEWARD O. NEWMAN,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, James M.
Richardson, Judge.
Steward Newman appeals from the denial of his application for
postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
Drew H. Kouris, Council Bluffs, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.
2
DANILSON, Chief Judge.
Following a bench trial, Steward Newman was convicted of three counts of
sexual abuse in the second degree, three counts of incest, three counts of
lascivious acts with a child, and three counts of indecent contact with a child. His
convictions were affirmed on appeal. See State v. Newman, No. 12-2222, 2014
WL 2600301, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. June 11, 2014).
Newman then filed an application for postconviction relief (PCR),
contending his trial counsel was ineffective in a number of respects, including not
adequately advising Newman concerning the waiver of his right to a jury trial,
allowing him to conditionally waive his right to a speedy trial, failing to seek
dismissal of the case on speedy-trial grounds, not calling certain witnesses, and
failing to suppress Newman’s statement. After a trial, the district court addressed
each of Newman’s claims and rejected them, concluding he had failed to
establish counsel failed in an essential duty from which prejudice resulted. See
Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 866 (Iowa 2012) (“[A]ll postconviction relief
applicants must establish counsel breached a duty and prejudice resulted.”
(alteration in original) (citation omitted)). Newman appeals.
Some of Newman’s claims are inconsistent with the record, others are
contrary to trial court strategy or are premised upon speculation. None of his
claims identify any prejudice supporting his ineffective-assistance claim. On our
de novo review, see id. at 862, we find the district court addressed all the issues,
properly applied the law, and we adopt its findings and reasons as our own. See
Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a), (c), (d), (e). We therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED.