IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1456
Filed May 2, 2018
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
WILLIAM JOHN BLANCHARD,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Taylor County, Dustria A. Relph,
Judge.
Defendant challenges his conviction for possession of more than five grams
of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. AFFIRMED.
Daniel M. Northfield, Urbandale, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sharon K. Hall, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.
2
MCDONALD, Judge.
William Blanchard challenges his conviction for possession of more than
five grams of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, in violation of Iowa Code
section 124.401(1)(b)(7) (2017). On appeal, Blanchard contends his plea was not
knowingly and voluntarily made due to the ineffective assistance of plea counsel.
First, plea counsel failed to provide Blanchard with correct information regarding
the sentence for the offense to which Blanchard pleaded guilty. Specifically,
counsel incorrectly advised Blanchard he would be eligible to receive a deferred
judgment or suspended sentence. Second, plea counsel was ineffective in failing
to request a continuance of the plea hearing when it was revealed during the plea
hearing that counsel had provided incorrect sentencing information.
To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Blanchard must
show “(1) his trial counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and (2) this failure
resulted in prejudice.” State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128, 133 (Iowa 2006). The
defendant must prove both elements by a preponderance of the evidence. See
State v. Madsen, 813 N.W.2d 714, 723 (Iowa 2012). The failure to prove either
element is fatal to the claim. See State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860, 869 (Iowa
2003).
The plea transcript establishes Blanchard’s guilty plea was knowing and
voluntary. During the plea colloquy, it became apparent Blanchard’s counsel had
provided Blanchard with incorrect information regarding the sentence. The
misinformation was promptly and definitively corrected by the district court during
the plea colloquy. The district court informed Blanchard he would be required to
go to prison for this offense and there would be a mandatory minimum sentence
3
prior to being eligible for parole. The district court allowed Blanchard to discuss
the issue with his counsel off the record. When the parties came back on the
record, Blanchard’s counsel stated he advised Blanchard if “he needed a couple
of weeks” to think about proceeding with the guilty plea, the matter could be
continued. Blanchard declined the additional time and decided to proceed with
plea and sentencing. The district court advised Blanchard again of the required
sentence and made sure Blanchard understood the same. The district court found
Blanchard’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and accepted the plea. The
record defeats Blanchard’s claim. See State v. Nosa, 738 N.W.2d 658, 661 (Iowa
Ct. App. 2007) (“The relevant record thus contains and consists of Nosa’s own
assertion that no promises or inducements led to his guilty plea, and thus his bare
allegation to the contrary neither meets a minimum threshold of credibility nor
overcomes the presumption the record truly reflects the facts.”); see also Wise v.
State, 708 N.W.2d 66, 70–71 (Iowa 2006) (stating district court could have
summarily dismissed application for postconviction relief where applicant’s
allegation directly contradicted the overwhelming record).
Regardless, Blanchard has not established constitutional prejudice. To
establish constitutional prejudice, Blanchard is required to prove that “but for
counsel’s ineffective assistance, he . . . would not have pleaded guilty and would
have insisted on going to trial.” Diaz v. State, 896 N.W.2d 723, 728 (Iowa 2017).
Blanchard does not allege he would have insisted upon trial had his counsel
provided him with the correct information. Instead, Blanchard claims he was
prejudiced “as he had to make a quick decision on whether to proceed [with the
4
plea].” Even if this were true, this allegation is insufficient to establish constitutional
prejudice and an entitlement to relief.
We affirm Blanchard’s conviction.
AFFIRMED.