Terry Harris, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa ( 2014 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 13-0958
Filed July 16, 2014
TERRY HARRIS,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karen A. Romano,
Judge.
Terry Harris appeals from the district court’s denial of his application for
postconviction relief asserting ineffective assistance on the part of his trial and
appellate counsel. AFFIRMED.
Michael J. Piper of Dickey & Campbell Law Firm, PLC, Des Moines, for
appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tyler J. Buller, Assistant Attorney
General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Mark H. Taylor, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.
2
DOYLE, J.
Terry Harris was charged with possession of crack cocaine with intent to
deliver, failure to possess a tax stamp, and possession of marijuana. A jury
found Harris guilty as charged. In his direct appeal, Harris claimed his Sixth
Amendment right to confront his accuser was violated when a police officer was
allowed to testify about a controlled drug buy without the testimony of the
confidential informant. He also claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for not
trying to learn the informant’s identity through a pretrial motion to compel
disclosure or a motion to suppress. This court affirmed Harris’s convictions. See
State v. Harris, No. 10-0643, 2011 WL 2078193, at *5-6 (Iowa Ct. App. May 25,
2011).
Harris filed a pro se application for postconviction relief (PCR) raising
essentially the same issues he raised on direct appeal—that his trial counsel was
ineffective in failing to obtain the identity of the confidential informant, thus
denying Harris the right to confront his accuser. He later filed a pro se
supplemental application, asserting his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
fully investigate the case and for failing to file a motion to suppress. Through
counsel, Harris’s PCR application was later amended to allege his appellate
counsel was ineffective for failing to raise claims under the Iowa Constitution.
We have carefully reviewed the record and the district court’s PCR ruling.
The district court’s ruling is thorough and well-reasoned. Upon our de novo
review, see Ennenga v. State, 812 N.W.2d 696, 701 (Iowa 2012), we find the
district court addressed the claims raised by Harris, and we agree with the court’s
findings and conclusions. Any further discussion by our court of the issues
3
raised would add little to, and not change, the disposition of this case.
Accordingly, the district court’s ruling denying Harris’s PCR application is
affirmed without opinion. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.1203(a), (d).
AFFIRMED.