from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, William P.
Brown appeals the denial of his application for
postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
Stone of Parrish Kruidenier Dunn Boles Gribble Gentry Brown
& Bergmann LLP, Des Moines, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sharon K. Hall, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
Moines narcotics officers executed a search warrant on an
apartment and discovered seven rocks of crack cocaine behind
a couch. A jury found Duvalmetrise Brown guilty of possession
of crack cocaine with intent to deliver.
direct appeal, this court rejected Brown's challenge to
the sufficiency of the evidence. State v.
Brown, No. 10-0988, 2011 WL 2420799, at *3-5 (Iowa
Ct. App. June 15, 2011) ("[W]e conclude the facts of
this case are sufficient to find that Brown was in
possession, or aided and abetted one who was in possession,
of a controlled substance with intent to deliver."). We
cited several pieces of evidence, including Brown's
statement that "he did not know 'who threw that
crack behind the couch' before being informed where the
officers found the crack cocaine." Id. at *1.
filed several postconviction-relief applications, which he
supplemented with an "amended and consolidated
application." At an evidentiary hearing, he sought to
establish that officers told him about the crack cocaine
behind the couch before he made the incriminating statement.
The State objected to the testimony on relevancy grounds. In
response, Brown's attorney asserted:
The issue is: Were these officers questioned as to if it was
possible the couch was moved and Mr. Brown saw it prior to
making that statement and, therefore, made it; or if another
officer, or this officer, made a statement regarding-saying,
"Hey, there's some crack behind this couch"
prior to Mr. Brown making that statement.
postconviction court ruled defense counsel "can ask [the
officers] those two questions that you just asked."
proceeded to question several officers. Following the
hearing, the postconviction court denied the application.
contends his trial attorney was ineffective in failing to
cross-examine the officers about his location in the
apartment and whether he could have "seen the drugs from
his vantage point" or "overheard police say where
it had been found." In his view, "the
postconviction court erred in barring as irrelevant testimony
needed to prove that the ineffectiveness of trial counsel was
prejudicial." Brown must show (1) counsel breached an
essential duty and (2) prejudice resulted. Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
noted, the postconviction court allowed Brown's
postconviction attorney to ask the precise questions he
sought to ask. Counsel questioned four officers about whether
Brown's trial attorney cross-examined them on the
following two topics: (1) if it was possible Brown observed
the crack cocaine behind the couch before making his
incriminating statement, and (2) if it was possible an
officer stated, "There's some crack here"
before Brown made his incriminating statement. The four
officers either ...