IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1397
Filed August 16, 2017
JAMAAL JOSHUA LESLIE,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, DeDra L.
Schroeder, Judge.
An applicant appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief.
AFFIRMED.
David A. Kuehner of Eggert, Erb, Mulcahy & Kuehner, P.L.L.C., Charles
City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas E. Bakke, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.
2
VOGEL, Presiding Judge.
Jamaal Leslie appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief
(PCR), claiming his PCR counsel was ineffective. Specifically, Leslie claims his
PCR counsel failed to fully develop the record regarding his claim that his trial
counsel was ineffective.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
On June 2, 2012, a jury found Leslie guilty of first-degree murder. On
direct appeal, his conviction was affirmed. See State v. Leslie, No. 12-1335,
2014 WL 70259, at *6 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2014). On July 10, 2014, Leslie
filed an application for PCR. Leslie later filed an amended application and added
several pro se claims, including the claims that his trial counsel should have
challenged statements Leslie made to the police as involuntary on constitutional
grounds and unreliable as involuntary on common law grounds. Following a trial,
the PCR court denied Leslie’s application.
Leslie appeals.
II. Scope and Standard of Review
We review the denial of applications postconviction relief for errors at law.
Everett v. State, 789 N.W.2d 151, 155 (Iowa 2010). “However, when the
applicant asserts claims of a constitutional nature, our review is de novo.”
Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134, 141 (Iowa 2001). Therefore, when an
applicant claims counsel was ineffective, we review the claim de novo. Id.
III. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
“To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the applicant
must demonstrate both ineffective assistance and prejudice.” Id. at 142. “To
3
establish the first prong, the applicant must demonstrate the attorney performed
below the standard demanded of a reasonably competent attorney.” Id. To
show prejudice, the applicant must establish “a reasonable probability that, but
for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been
different.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984).
Leslie advances a broad argument that PCR counsel did not sufficiently
challenge his trial counsel’s failure to challenge statements he made to the police
as involuntary on constitutional and common law grounds. However, the record
reveals PCR counsel questioned trial counsel about filing a motion to suppress
and the possibility of suppressing the statements. Additionally, PCR counsel
discussed the voluntariness of the statements with Leslie during Leslie’s
testimony at the PCR trial. Leslie now claims PCR counsel should have
highlighted alleged proof in the record that his statements were involuntary; yet,
he failed to highlight the alleged proof in the record on appeal. Based on our
review of the record, we conclude Leslie’s PCR counsel did not fail to perform an
essential duty.
IV. Conclusion
Because we conclude Leslie’s PCR counsel did not fail to perform an
essential duty, we reject his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and affirm
the PCR court’s denial of his application for PCR.
AFFIRMED.