Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Robert Vance v. State of Iowa

April 24, 2013

ROBERT VANCE, APPLICANT-APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF IOWA, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.



Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Todd A. Geer, Judge.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Doyle, P.J.

Robert Vance appeals from the district court's denial of his application for post-conviction relief. AFFIRMED.

Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Danilson and Mullins, JJ. Bower, J., takes no part.

After an October 2008 jury trial, Robert Vance was convicted of possession of pseudoephedrine and possession of anhydrous ammonia with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine and driving while barred. See State v. Vance, 790 N.W.2d 775, 778-80 (Iowa 2010). On appeal, this court affirmed Vance's convictions, and we preserved for possible post-conviction relief proceedings his claim he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to challenge the search of his car in a motion to suppress. See State v. Vance, No. 08-1762, 2009 WL 3379154, at *3-4 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2009). On further review from this court, our supreme court affirmed the decision of this court and the judgment of the district court. Vance, 790 N.W.2d at 790.

Thereafter, Vance filed an application for post-conviction relief (PCR).*fn1 In his application, he alleged, among other things, that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the warrantless search of his car in a motion to suppress. After a hearing, the district court rejected his claims and dismissed his application.

Vance now appeals the dismissal of his PCR application, asserting only that his PCR counsel was ineffective in failing to develop an adequate record for the PCR proceeding. Vance observes in his appellate brief that "[t]he [PCR] file and hearing transcripts are sparse, at best," and there is "no more information now than when the case was on direct appeal." We agree with this assessment.

Because the record on this appeal is inadequate to address Vance's claim, we preserve his ineffective-assistance-of-PCR-counsel claim for possible future PCR proceedings. See State v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192, 198 (Iowa 2010) (holding a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be preserved for PCR proceedings if it cannot be addressed on appeal because of an inadequate record, regardless of the court's view of the potential viability of the claim).

AFFIRMED.

Danilson, J., concurs; Mullins, J., concurs specially.

MULLINS, J. (concurs specially)

I write separately to make clear that I concur only because I feel compelled to do so by State v. Vance, 790 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.