State of Iowa v. Adam D. Dodson ( 2017 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-0044
Filed July 19, 2017
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ADAM D. DODSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark R. Fowler,
District Associate Judge.
A defendant appeals his conviction. AFFIRMED.
Thomas J. O’Flaherty of O’Flaherty Law Firm, Bettendorf, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kelli A. Huser, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.
2
VOGEL, Presiding Judge.
Adam Dodson appeals his conviction following his guilty plea to domestic
abuse assault, in violation of Iowa Code section 708.2A(2)(c)1 (2016). Dodson
claims his counsel was ineffective in failing to file a motion in arrest of judgment
challenging Dodson’s guilty plea.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
On December 13, 2016, the State charged Dodson with domestic abuse
assault. Dodson agreed to plead guilty, and the State agreed to make a
sentencing recommendation that Dodson be sentenced to 240 days in jail, with
all but seven days suspended. The written plea agreement also contained a
provision that read: “Upon a conviction of domestic assault in violation of Iowa
Code section 708.2A, I shall not possess, ship, transport, or receive a firearm,
offensive weapon, or ammunition.” There was an “X” next to this provision;
several other provisions also contained an “X” next to them. Dodson signed the
plea agreement.
The district court accepted Dodson’s guilty plea and sentenced him
consistently with the State’s recommendation. Additionally, the court issued a
no-contact order that disallowed Dodson from possessing firearms.
Dodson appeals.
1
Iowa Code section 708.2A(2)(c) provides: “On a first offense of domestic abuse
assault, the person commits: . . . (c) An aggravated misdemeanor, if the domestic abuse
assault is committed with the intent to inflict a serious injury upon another, or if the
person uses or displays a dangerous weapon in connection with the assault.”
3
II. Scope and Standard of Review
We review ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims de novo. State v.
Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488, 494–95 (Iowa 2012).
III. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Dodson asserts his counsel was ineffective in failing to file a motion in
arrest of judgment following his guilty plea. Dodson argues he was unaware his
guilty plea would result in a prohibition on the possession of firearms and claims
the record does not reflect who made the “X” mark next to that provision of the
written plea agreement.
“In order to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a
defendant must prove: (1) counsel failed to perform an essential duty; and (2)
prejudice resulted.” State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185, 195 (Iowa 2008). “Both
elements must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. However, both
elements do not always need to be addressed. If the claim lacks prejudice, it can
be decided on that ground alone without deciding whether the attorney
performed deficiently.” Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134, 142 (Iowa 2001)
(citations omitted). It is permissible for defendants to raise claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel on direct appeal. State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128, 132
(Iowa 2006). However, when a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is
raised on direct appeal, we will only decide the claim when the record is
adequate to do so. Id.Upon our review of the record, we conclude it is adequate to reject
Dodson’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The record reflects Dodson
signed a written plea agreement that fully disclosed the relevant terms, including
4
the firearms provision of which Dodson now claims he was unaware. As the
record demonstrates Dodson was fully advised, in writing, of the terms of his plea
agreement, he cannot show his counsel failed to fully advise him of the
consequences of his plea. Accordingly, we deny Dodson’s ineffective-
assistance-of-counsel claim. See Ledezma, 626 N.W.2d at 142 (citations
omitted).
IV. Conclusion
Because we conclude Dodson did not show his counsel failed to perform
an essential duty, we deny his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and
affirm his conviction.
AFFIRMED.