Bruce Allen Rankin v. State of Iowa ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
    No. 20-0753
    Filed June 16, 2021
    BRUCE ALLEN RANKIN,
    Applicant-Appellant,
    vs.
    STATE OF IOWA,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Margaret
    Reyes, Judge.
    Bruce Rankin appeals from the denial of his application of postconviction
    relief. AFFIRMED.
    Susan R. Stockdale, Colo, for appellant.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Tyler J. Buller, Assistant Attorney
    General, for appellee State.
    Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.
    2
    BOWER, Chief Judge.
    Bruce Rankin appeals from a district court ruling denying his postconviction-
    relief (PCR) application, which related to his 2018 bench trial and resulting
    conviction of two counts of indecent contact with a child. In the PCR proceedings,
    Rankin raised a number of claims but appeals only one issue. He contends the
    trial court in his criminal case was constitutionally required to conduct a colloquy
    on the record to ensure he was aware of his right to testify or not testify at the trial
    and was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waiving that right. He argues if the
    trial court is required to make a record with regard to his waiver of his right to a jury
    trial, the trial court should have made a similar record with respect to his waiver of
    his right to testify. Rankin asserts his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to
    request the colloquy.
    The PCR court observed that in Schertz v. State, the supreme court held
    trial courts are not required to conduct a colloquy concerning a defendant’s
    decision whether or not to testify. 
    380 N.W.2d 404
    , 415 (Iowa 1985) (finding the
    decision of whether to testify is one of trial strategy, a matter in which the trial court
    should not be involved, and “better left to the criminal defendant and his or her
    counsel”). The PCR court consequently rejected the claim, finding Rankin’s trial
    counsel was not ineffective for failing to make a meritless request.
    On appeal, Rankin asserts Schertz should be revisited.             However, our
    supreme court unanimously “decline[d a] defendant’s invitation to retreat from our
    holding in Schertz” in 2003. State v. Reynolds, 
    670 N.W.2d 405
    , 413 (Iowa 2003).
    This court does not have the authority to overturn supreme court precedent. State
    v. Hastings, 
    466 N.W.2d 697
    , 700 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990). “We will not find counsel
    3
    incompetent for failing to pursue a meritless issue.” State v. Brubaker, 
    805 N.W.2d 165
    , 171 (Iowa 2011). Because Rankin’s counsel was not required to raise a
    meritless claim, his ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails. See State v.
    Tompkins, 
    859 N.W.2d 631
    , 637 (Iowa 2015) (”To succeed on a claim of ineffective
    assistance of counsel, a claimant must establish by a preponderance of the
    evidence: (1) his trial counsel failed to perform an essential duty and (2) this failure
    resulted in prejudice. Reversal is warranted only where a showing of both of these
    elements is made.” (edited for readability)). We affirm.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-0753

Filed Date: 6/16/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/16/2021