from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County,
Jeffrey J. Larson, Judge.
Thompson appeals the district court's denial of his
application for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
D. Nerenstone of Nerenstone Law, Council Bluffs, for
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Thompson pled guilty to first-degree burglary, second-degree
robbery, third-degree kidnapping, and two counts of
aggravated assault while displaying a dangerous weapon, in
connection with the robbery of a Council Bluffs mall. Two
years later, he filed a postconviction relief application and
amended application alleging a variety of errors. The
district court denied the application on a stipulated record.
contends (1) his trial and/or postconviction attorney was
ineffective in failing to (A) "provide him with all
materials related to his case"; (B) challenge the
factual basis for two counts of aggravated assault rather
than a single count; (C) seek merger of the assault and
second-degree robbery convictions; (D) challenge the factual
basis for the kidnapping charge; (E) "demand [the]
preparation" of a PSI report; and (F) have the
postconviction relief hearing reported; (2) the district
court abused its discretion in failing to "provide
explicit and detailed reasons for the imposition of
consecutive sentences"; and (3) cumulative errors
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
prevail on his ineffective assistance claims, Thompson must
show (1) counsel breached an essential duty and (2) prejudice
resulted. Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 687 (1984). If the court concludes Thompson
"has failed to establish either of these elements, [the
court] need not address the remaining element."
State v. Thorndike, 860 N.W.2d 316, 320
Failure to Provide Materials
contends his "constitutional rights were violated by the
failure of defense counsel to provide him with all materials
related to his case." Specifically, Thompson claims his
trial attorney did not give him (1) a copy of additional
minutes of testimony and (2) transcripts of two depositions.
On our de novo review, we are convinced Thompson could not
prove a breach or prejudice.
trial attorney testified that it was the "standard
practice" of her office to send or hand-deliver clients
a copy of the original trial information and the additional
minutes of testimony. As for the depositions, she noted
Thompson "was present through all the depositions."
suggests his presence was insufficient. He asserts he needed
the deposition transcripts to highlight "discrepancies
between the sworn statements given during the depositions and
the unsworn statements asserted in the various minutes of
testimony." But as his trial attorney pointed out,
"It is often the case that in deposition there are
contradictions to what the Minutes of Testimony say."
She elaborated, "[T]he reason we take depositions is
because sometimes the minutes do not
accurately·reflect what a witness will actually say
occurred." She expressed little concern "about
exactly the discrepancies in the minutes, " focusing
instead on the contents of the deposition. Given
counsel's practice of providing and discussing ...