from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Marlita A.
appeals the denial of his second postconviction-relief
Blair III of Blair & Fitzsimmons, P.C., Dubuque, for
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ.
Robinson appeals the denial of his second
postconviction-relief application. He argues his first
postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing to file a
motion to enlarge or expand the postconviction court's
ruling that appellate counsel should have raised the issue
that an impeachment instruction based on inconsistent
testimony was warranted at trial. We affirm.
Background Facts and Proceedings.
Robinson's posticonviction appeal arises from a 2005
conviction for first-degree robbery and willful injury. At
trial, Sinh Tran testified about his account of the
events. He stated the day of the robbery he was on
the way home from a friend's house when he stopped at the
store to buy some cigarettes, and Robinson approached him for
a ride. Tran stated that Robinson got into the car and asked
him for money. When Tran said that he did not have any money,
Robinson took out a knife, hit Tran multiple times, stabbed
him, and took his wallet, which had fourteen or fifteen
dollars in it. The police arrived, and Tran was later treated
for his injuries.
Scott Crow testified at trial about his conversations with
Tran regarding the events. According to Crow, Tran told him
he was coming from home when he stopped to buy cigarettes. He
also testified that Tran stated he wanted to leave the scene
of the crime, and Robinson took seventeen dollars.
close of trial, Robinson's counsel objected to the
court's deletion of a proposed instruction for
"impeachment of prior under-oath statements" based
on the inconsistencies between Tran's and Crow's
testimony about what Tran told Crow after the attack. The
court overruled the objection, explaining:
The court's recollection of the testimony is that no
formal impeachment by prior sworn statement occurred in the
testimony of Sinh Tran. I do know that counsel for the
defendant did make reference to the deposition, however I
don't believe that there was formal impeachment of Mr.
Tran's testimony by his previous deposition testimony,
and that's the reason why the court did not submit that
the trial, Robinson was convicted of first-degree robbery and
willful injury. Robinson appealed his conviction raising
multiple arguments that are not at issue in this appeal. A
panel of our court affirmed Robinson's conviction.
See State v. Robinson, No. 06-0050, 2007 WL 257623,
at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2007).
2007, Robinson filed a pro se application for postconviction
relief arguing, in part, appellate counsel was ineffective
for failing to argue the trial court should have issued an
impeachment instruction based on the inconsistent statements
to law enforcement. Robinson then secured court-appointed
counsel and filed an amended postconviction-relief
application. The postconviction court denied Robinson's
claims. Robinson appealed, arguing postconviction counsel was
ineffective for failing to have the postconviction court rule
on his claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for
failing to argue an impeachment instruction was required at
the trial level. A panel of our court preserved the argument