Leonard Ray Russell, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-0957
Filed August 17, 2016
LEONARD RAY RUSSELL,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Crawford County, Duane E.
Hoffmeyer, Judge.
Applicant appeals the district court decision denying his application for
postconviction relief from his convictions for ongoing criminal conduct, two counts
of human trafficking, and two counts of pandering. AFFIRMED.
Rees Conrad Douglas, Sioux City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
Leonard Russell appeals the district court decision denying his application
for postconviction relief from his convictions for ongoing criminal conduct, two
counts of human trafficking, and two counts of pandering. We find Russell has
not shown he received ineffective assistance based on his claims defense
counsel (1) did not ensure Russell was present during arguments in chambers
concerning a motion in limine and (2) violated the court’s ruling on the motion by
calling the State’s witnesses liars during closing arguments. We affirm Russell’s
convictions.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
Russell was charged with ongoing criminal conduct, two counts of human
trafficking, and two counts of pandering. The State alleged he induced two
teenage girls to work as exotic dancers at strip clubs and to engage in
prostitution. Russell claimed the girls were not credible witnesses because they
changed some aspects of their stories about what occurred.
Prior to trial the State filed a motion in limine asking the court to prohibit
“[a]ny use of the word ‘liar’ or ‘lying’ or similar type term.” The trial court stated
on the record:
The record should show that we are here in the matter of
State versus Leonard Russell, FECR062752. Mr. Russell is
present. Counsel is present. The jury is not present. The Court
has met with counsel in chambers twice for the purpose of allowing
counsel to argue the Motions in Limine filed by the State on
September 2nd.
3
The court sustained the request to prohibit the use of the words “liar” and “lying.”
There is no transcript of the arguments in chambers concerning the motion in
limine.
During closing arguments, defense counsel made a statement that may
have referred to the teenage girls as liars, the prosecutor objected, and the
district court sustained the objection. There is no transcript of the closing
arguments in Russell’s criminal trial. Russell was convicted of the charges
against him. His convictions were affirmed on appeal. State v. Russell, No. 08-
2034, 2010 WL 786207, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2010).
Russell filed an application for postconviction relief, claiming he received
ineffective assistance because defense counsel did not ensure Russell was
present during the arguments in chambers concerning the motion in limine and
because defense counsel improperly violated the court’s ruling on the motion by
calling the State’s witnesses liars during closing arguments. The district court
denied Russell’s application for postconviction relief. He now appeals.
II. Standard of Review
We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. Ennenga
v. State, 812 N.W.2d 696, 701 (Iowa 2012). To establish a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel, an applicant must show (1) the attorney failed to perform
an essential duty, and (2) prejudice resulted to the extent it denied the applicant
a fair trial. State v. Carroll, 767 N.W.2d 638, 641 (Iowa 2009). An applicant has
the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence counsel was ineffective.
See State v. McKettrick, 480 N.W.2d 52, 55 (Iowa 1992).
4
III. Ineffective Assistance
A. Russell claims he received ineffective assistance because defense
counsel did not ensure Russell’s presence during the arguments presented in the
judge’s chambers concerning the State’s motion in limine. For purposes of our
discussion, we will assume Russell was not present in chambers during the
arguments on the motion in limine.1
Putting aside the issue of whether defense counsel breached an essential
duty by not ensuring Russell’s presence pursuant to Iowa Rule of Criminal
Procedure 2.27(1), we turn to the issue of whether Russell was prejudiced by
counsel’s performance. See Everett v. State, 789 N.W.2d 151, 159 (Iowa 2010)
(“[B]ecause we can resolve this issue on the prejudice prong, we need not
determine whether the failure to ensure a defendant’s presence during
consideration of a jury question would always constitute a breach of an essential
duty.”). Russell has not shown how his presence during the arguments on the
motion in limine would have changed the results of the trial. See State v. Lopez,
872 N.W.2d 159, 169 (Iowa 2015) (“Prejudice is generally found only if ‘but for
counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been
different.’” (citation omitted)). We conclude Russell has not shown he received
ineffective assistance of counsel on this ground.
1
Because there is no transcript of the arguments made in chambers, it is not entirely
clear whether Russell was or was not present for the arguments. The trial court record
does not specifically state whether Russell was present in chambers for the arguments.
He was present in the courtroom when the court made a ruling on the motion on the
record. At the postconviction hearing, Russell testified he was not present in chambers
during the arguments. Defense counsel testified, “I just don’t recall whether Leonard
was actually—he was present in the courtroom, but I don’t remember if he went back
with us when we went back in the chambers.”
5
B. Russell also claims he received ineffective assistance because
defense counsel improperly stated during closing arguments the teenage girls
were liars or were lying. The prosecutor objected to the statement and the
district court sustained the objection. Russell states defense counsel’s statement
and the court’s ruling might have given the jury the impression the court believed
the girls were credible because it stopped defense counsel from calling them
liars.
There is no transcript of the closing arguments. We do not know exactly
what defense counsel said or what the court stated in ruling on the prosecutor’s
objection, and therefore, there is no evidence to show what impression the
statement or ruling might have made. Russell has the burden of establishing his
claim of ineffective assistance by a preponderance of the evidence. See Nguyen
v. State, 878 N.W.2d 744, 752 (Iowa 2016). As the appellant, Russell had the
obligation to provide the court with a record to support his claims.2 See State v.
Ruiz, 496 N.W.2d 789, 791 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (“[A] defendant claiming error
has an obligation to provide the court with a record that discloses the error
claimed.”). Because there is no record to support his claims, we conclude
Russell has not shown he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
We affirm Russell’s convictions.
AFFIRMED.
2
When a transcript is not available, a party may take advantage of the provisions in Iowa
Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.806 to develop a statement of the proceedings.