Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark D. Cleve, Judge.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Doyle, J.
Derik Odell appeals a district court order finding violations of probation, revoking his deferred judgment, and imposing a prison sentence on a charge of burglary in the third degree.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.
Derik Odell appeals a district court order finding violations of probation, revoking his deferred judgment, and imposing a prison sentence on a charge of burglary in the third degree. He contends the court (1) violated his constitutional right to procedural due process by failing to provide sufficient findings of fact showing the basis for revocation of his deferred judgment and (2) failed to conduct a sufficient sentencing hearing in violation of Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.23(3).
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
In July 2010, Odell pled guilty to a charge of burglary in the third degree, in violation of Iowa Code sections 713.1 and 713.6A (2009). He was granted a deferred judgment and was placed on probation for two years. The fine was suspended, but he was ordered to pay restitution and complete CADS (Center for Alcohol and Drug Services) treatment.
In August 2011, the State filed a report of probation violation, later amended. Odell stipulated to the probation violations and was found in contempt of court. He was ordered to serve 180 days in county jail. As additional terms of his probation, Odell was ordered to complete the CADS in-jail treatment program. Upon successful completion of the CADS program, he was ordered to enter a residential facility, receive a mental health evaluation, and obtain a G.E.D.
In May 2012, the State filed a second addendum to the report of probation violation. The report alleged Odell had violated the terms of his probation by violating jail rules, which caused him to be placed on special management status and terminated his opportunity to participate in treatment. It was recommended that Odell's probation be revoked and sentence imposed.
A probation revocation hearing was held in June 2012. At the conclusion of the evidence, the district court determined "that the State [had] proved the violations alleged in the report of violation previously filed in this matter and the addendum to that report." The court revoked the deferred judgment and proceeded immediately to sentencing. The court sentenced Odell to five years in prison. Odell now appeals.
II. Finding of Violations of Deferred Judgment Probation.
Odell contends the district court's cursory revocation ruling violated his procedural due process rights. The State counters that Odell did not preserve error on his due process challenge because he failed to raise the issue in the district court. Recognizing this state of affairs, Odell makes an alternative claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See State v. Ondayog, 722 N.W.2d 778, 784 (Iowa 2006) ("Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are not bound by traditional error-preservation rules."). We agree with the State that we must review the issue under an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel rubric.
As a preliminary matter, we note that the record is adequate to decide rather than preserve Odell's claim that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the brevity of the district court's findings that he violated the terms of his deferred judgment probation. See State v. Bearse, 748 N.W.2d 211, 214 (Iowa 2008) ("Although claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally preserved for post-conviction relief proceedings, we will consider such claims on direct appeal where the record is adequate."). To prevail, Odell must show his attorney breached an essential duty and prejudice resulted. State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185, 195 (Iowa 2008) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). The claim may be resolved on either ground. Id. at 196. We elect to address the prejudice ground. The test for prejudice under an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim is whether "'it is reasonably probable that the result of the proceeding would have been different.'" State v. Dudley, 766 N.W.2d 606, 620 (Iowa 2009) (quoting State v. Schaer, 757 N.W.2d 630, 638 (Iowa 2008)).
Odell maintains that he was prejudiced as follows: "The district court's actions cannot be reviewed because the record does not contain the district court's factual basis for finding Odell had violated the terms of his deferred judgment." This argument would be more appealing if Odell were also challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the findings that he violated the terms of his probation. See State v. Kirby, 622 N.W.2d 506, 510-11 (Iowa 2001) (addressing both the adequacy of the court's findings in revoking probation and whether sufficient ...