State of Iowa v. Ramarez M. Gary ( 2018 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-0311
Filed December 19, 2018
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
RAMAREZ M. GARY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Linda M.
Fangman, Judge.
Ramarez Gary appeals the judgment and sentence entered on his
convictions after pleading guilty. AFFIRMED.
Steven E. Goodlow of Goodlow Law Firm, Albia, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Tyler J. Buller, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Scott, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2018).
2
DOYLE, Judge.
Ramarez Gary appeals the judgment and sentence entered on his
convictions after pleading guilty to various charges. He alleges he received
ineffective assistance of counsel. We review claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel de novo. See State v. Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488, 494 (Iowa 2012).
To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance, a defendant must show (1)
counsel failed to perform an essential duty and (2) prejudice resulted. See State
v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860, 869 (Iowa 2003). Counsel breaches an essential duty
if counsel failed to perform competently under prevailing professional norms. See
Clay, 824 N.W.2d at 495. In the context of a guilty plea proceeding, a defendant
shows prejudice by proving that, but for counsel’s breach, there is a reasonable
probability the defendant “would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on
going to trial.” State v. Carroll, 767 N.W.2d 638, 641 (Iowa 2009). Unless the
defendant proves both elements, the ineffective-assistance claim fails. See Clay,
824 N.W.2d at 495. Although we may address ineffective-assistance claims on
direct appeal when the record is adequate, we ordinarily preserve such claims for
postconviction-relief proceedings to allow for full development of the record. See
State v. Virgil, 895 N.W.2d 873, 879 (Iowa 2017).
We are unable to resolve Gary’s claim on direct appeal. Put simply, we
cannot discern the precise nature of his claim. Gary alleges that his counsel failed
“to notify and properly inform him of the type and significance of the [combined
plea and sentencing] hearing and what [it] would entail,” which amounts to “a
failure of counsel to maintain essential and important contact” and caused him to
be “ill prepared for his sentencing hearing.” He also alleges counsel was
3
ineffective “by failing to discuss with [him] the significance of Iowa Rule of Criminal
Procedure 2.10,” though whether and how the rule applies here is unknown to us.
Whether counsel failed to perform an essential duty and whether Gary would not
have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial had counsel performed
differently cannot be determined on this record. Accordingly, we affirm Gary’s
convictions and preserve any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for
possible postconviction-relief proceedings. See State v. Harris, ___ N.W.2d ___,
___, 2018 WL 5851066, at *1 (Iowa 2018) (“If the development of the ineffective-
assistance claim in the appellate brief was insufficient to allow its consideration,
the court of appeals should not consider the claim, but it should not outright reject
it.”); State v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192, 198 (Iowa 2010) (“If, however, the court
determines the claim cannot be addressed on appeal, the court must preserve it
for a postconviction-relief proceeding, regardless of the court’s view of the potential
viability of the claim.”).
AFFIRMED.