Joshua Jarrett v. State of Iowa ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-0707
Filed July 26, 2023
JOSHUA JARRETT,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buchanan County, Laura Parrish,
Judge.
Joshua Jarrett appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief.
AFFIRMED.
Benjamin Bergmann and Alexander Smith of Parrish, Kruidenier, Dunn,
Gentry, Brown, Bergmann & Messamer, L.L.P., for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.
2
CHICCHELLY, Judge.
Joshua Jarrett appeals the district court’s denial of his application for
postconviction relief (PCR), contending his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to
properly “impeach[] the testimony of the complaining witness.” Upon our review,
we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
In 2016, a Buchanan County jury found Jarrett guilty of second-degree
sexual abuse, third-degree sexual abuse, and flight to avoid prosecution. See
Iowa Code §§ 709.1, 709.3(2), 709.4(2)(b), 719.4(4) (2014). In its decision on
direct appeal, this court provided the following summary of the facts giving rise to
Jarrett’s conviction:
H.K. was known to Jarrett through H.K.’s mother. H.K.’s
father is deceased; he died when H.K. was six years old. According
to H.K., Jarrett first made her manually stimulate him shortly after her
father’s death. H.K. did not tell her mother about this incident
because Jarrett told her not to. On another occasion, when H.K. was
eight years old, Jarrett made her perform oral sex on him. Again,
H.K. did not disclose the abuse to her mother because Jarrett told
H.K. not to and because she did not want her mother to be upset.
The sex acts that Jarrett made H.K. perform eventually
progressed from manual and oral stimulation to anal and vaginal
intercourse. If H.K. resisted, Jarrett would “be terrible” to H.K.’s
mother afterwards. Jarrett initiated sexual encounters with H.K.
more frequently as she grew older. At trial, when asked how many
times Jarrett had sexual contact with her, H.K. responded it was “way
too many to count.”
When H.K. was in fifth grade she was provided a cell phone.
Jarrett began to initiate sexual contact by sending H.K. text
messages after her bedtime. H.K. testified about the content of the
messages, stating they would say, “‘Come meet me after your mom
is asleep’ or ‘Come meet me in the living room’ or ‘Come meet me’
wherever.”
According to H.K., one night, when she was fourteen, Jarrett
sent her a text message after her bedtime to “[c]ome get me after
your mother is asleep.” H.K.’s mother saw H.K.’s phone light up
when she received that message, and the mother grabbed the phone
3
from H.K.’s hand. The mother read the text message, along with all
of the other text messages from Jarrett to H.K. that told her to meet
him after bedtime in various locations. H.K.’s mother and H.K. had
a conversation outside of Jarrett’s presence; H.K. told her mother
that “since the age of 6 . . . he would make [her] have vaginal, anal,
and oral sex with him and that he would make [her] masturbate him.”
H.K. was crying throughout her disclosure, and her mother was also
upset. The mother confronted Jarrett. No one reported the abuse.
H.K.’s mother made sure Jarrett was not alone with H.K., and Jarrett
had no further sexual contact with H.K. from that point on.
H.K. reported the sexual abuse to law enforcement in August
2014. When Jarrett learned that the police were looking for him to
investigate H.K.’s reports of sexual abuse, he fled from the state—to
Kansas, North Carolina, Colorado, and finally Texas, where he was
apprehended.
State v. Jarrett, No. 17-0091, 2018 WL 1099268, at *1–2 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 21,
2018). On appeal, this court rejected Jarrett’s various claims, including a challenge
to the district court’s denial of the admission of a video-recorded Child Protective
Center (CPC) interview of H.K. in which she “denied any sexual abuse by Jarrett.”
Id. at *2.
Jarrett filed this PCR application in 2019, claiming his trial counsel was
ineffective in failing to get the CPC interview into evidence or question H.K. about
her prior inconsistent statements. He filed a motion for summary disposition of his
application, which the court denied. Following a hearing, the PCR court entered a
ruling denying Jarrett’s application. Jarrett appealed.
II. Standards of Review
“We ordinarily review PCR rulings for correction of errors at law. . . . But
when the allegation is ineffective assistance [of] . . . counsel, we review de novo.”
Brooks v. State, 975 N.W.2d 444, 445 (Iowa Ct. App. 2022) (citations omitted).
4
III. Discussion
On appeal, Jarrett maintains his claim regarding trial counsel’s alleged
ineffectiveness in failing to impeach H.K. with regard to her statements in the CPC
interview in which she denied sexual abuse by Jarrett. He also challenges the
PCR court’s denial of his motion for summary disposition on that claim. To prevail
on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Jarrett must show (1) counsel
breached an essential duty and (2) prejudice resulted. See Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
Additional facts relevant to resolution of Jarrett’s claim include the following.
As noted above, H.K. testified Jarrett began sexually abusing her when she was
six years old and the abuse continued until she was between thirteen and fourteen
years old. The summer before H.K.’s freshman year, Jarrett’s daughter S. moved
in with H.K.’s family. H.K. told S. about the abuse by Jarrett, and S. responded
that Jarrett “had done it to her, too.” S. eventually disclosed the abuse, and the
Department of Human Services (DHS) became involved with the family. As part
of the DHS investigation, the CPC scheduled an interview of H.K. On the drive to
the interview, H.K.’s mother “told [H.K.] to lie and say that it didn’t happen to [her]
and say that [she] didn’t think it happened to [S.]” either. H.K.’s mother told H.K.
that if she “didn’t lie,” then the kids would be “taken away” by DHS. And the mother
“said if [H.K.] did [lie], then she would let [H.K.] decide if [Jarrett] stayed or [left the
family home].” H.K. “was scared” and agreed that she “would lie.” Thereafter,
during the interview, when H.K. was asked “if anything had happened, [she] said
no.” On the drive home, the mother asked H.K. if she had lied; H.K. “said yes.”
H.K. then “waited for her to ask . . . if [Jarrett] was going to stay or go,” but “she
5
never did, and he came home.” Subsequently, H.K. reported Jarrett’s abuse to
law enforcement.
H.K. later “testified at Jarrett’s trial during the State’s case-in-chief and
described the years of sexual abuse by Jarrett.” Jarrett, 2018 WL 1099268, at *2.
But trial counsel “did not attempt to offer or cross-examine H.K. about her video-
recorded CPC interview in which she had denied the abuse by Jarrett.” Id. at *3.
At the PCR hearing, trial counsel1 stated he believed “the fact that the jury never
learned that H.K. had previously denied the abuse prejudiced” Jarrett.
On appeal, Jarrett contends the CPC interview was admissible under a
number of evidentiary rules, including Iowa Code section 915.38(3) and Iowa
Rules of Evidence 5.613, 5.703, and 5.104. He further argues “[t]he failure to get
the CPC video into evidence was not a strategic decision” because “[g]etting the
denial in would have complemented counsel’s strategy.” We noted on direct
appeal, “Since H.K. testified at trial, the [CPC interview] was admissible for
impeachment as a prior inconsistent statement.” Id. at *4. For purposes of
evaluating Jarrett’s claim, we will assume without deciding that he could meet the
procedural requirements of rule 5.613 and that the recorded statement could have
complemented trial counsel’s strategy of challenging H.K.’s credibility.
But Jarrett also must be able to establish the prejudice prong of his
ineffective-assistance claim to be successful. See State v. Haas, 930 N.W.2d 699,
703 (Iowa 2019); Dempsey v. State, 860 N.W.2d 860, 868 (Iowa 2015) (“The court
1 During his criminal trial, Jarrett was represented by Clemens Erdahl and his co-
counsel Eric Tindal. Erdahl passed away in 2019, before Jarrett took depositions
in this PCR action. Accordingly, our references to trial counsel’s statements or
testimony are with regard to Tindal.
6
always has the option to decide the claim on the prejudice prong of the Strickland
test, without deciding whether the attorney performed deficiently.” (quoting State
v. Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488, 501 n.2 (Iowa 2012))). In other words, Jarrett had to
establish “a reasonable probability . . . the result of the proceeding would have
been different” if trial counsel had elicited evidence regarding H.K’s statements
during the CPC interview. See id. On this issue, Jarrett claims placing H.K.’s
credibility in question “would have put this case into an entirely new light,” “with an
impeached witness that the jury had to believe beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The PCR court was not persuaded, finding:
[E]ven if questions had been asked of H.K. regarding her prior denial,
the explanation for the denial was persuasive—that H.K.’s mother
had told her to lie in order to avoid removal of the children in the
home. Bringing that evidence before the jury would perhaps have
only cemented the jury’s belief that H.K. was more credible than her
mother at the time of trial. There is no guarantee, or even probable
likelihood on these facts, that the prior denial would have
strengthened Jarrett’s denials.
. . . . Even if counsel’s failure to get the videotaped CPC
testimony before the jury, or their failure to conduct a different cross-
examination of H.K. was determined to be ineffective, it was not
prejudicial, and therefore, Jarrett’s claim must fail.
Indeed, at the PCR hearing, trial counsel acknowledged that if H.K.’s
inconsistent statements had been raised, H.K. “would then claim that her mother
put her under duress,” which “was an issue” for the defense. The jury had other
reason to question H.K.’s mother’s credibility as well. For instance, when police
spoke to her about H.K.’s allegations of abuse against Jarrett, she called Jarrett
and told him “he probably needed to get home” because H.K. had reported the
abuse and the police were involved. And as this court previously noted:
At trial, H.K.’s mother denied that H.K. had disclosed the
sexual abuse when she caught Jarrett sending her the text message.
7
Even so, she acknowledged that after that incident, she did not allow
Jarrett and H.K. to be alone together. Jarrett did not deny that he
sent the text messages to H.K. and also did not deny that H.K.’s
mother confronted him about it, but he claimed he told her “it was
nothing” and she should “just let it go.”
Jarrett, 2018 WL 1099268, at *2. The PCR court reiterated additional evidence
corroborating H.K.’s testimony as follows:
In addition to the testimony of H.K., the jury in this case had
other corroborating evidence to consider in reaching a guilty verdict:
(1) the text message from Jarrett to H.K. was acknowledged by
H.K.’s mother and Jarrett—without a reasonable explanation as to
what it could have meant, other than exactly what H.K. said it
meant—that she was supposed to get him for sexual contact after
her mother was asleep and wouldn’t be aware; (2) H.K.’s mother’s
decision to prevent H.K. from being alone with Jarrett after seeing
the text message; [and] (3) Jarrett’s response to the accusation was
to abscond to Texas in an attempt to avoid contact with law
enforcement.
Upon our review, we agree Jarrett has failed to establish a reasonable
probability, in light of all the evidence, that had H.K.’s testimony been impeached,
the outcome would have been different. See Everett v. State, 789 N.W.2d 151,
160 (Iowa 2010). In other words, he has not shown “the possibility that this
evidence would have impugned [H.K.’s] credibility is sufficient to undermine
confidence in the outcome.” Cf. Millam v. State, 745 N.W.2d 719, 724 (Iowa 2008)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, we affirm the court’s denial of Jarrett’s motion for summary
disposition on this claim and the denial of his PCR application.
AFFIRMED.