MUHAMMAD Y. HAMEED, Applicant-Appellant,
STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee.
from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Thomas G.
Reidel, Judge. Muhammad Hameed appeals from the denial of his
application for postconviction relief.
Legue of Legue Law, P.C., Davenport, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sheryl Soich, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., Mullins, J., and Gamble, S.J.
GAMBLE, Senior Judge.
Hameed appeals from the denial of his application for
postconviction relief (PCR), contending his criminal trial
counsel was ineffective in a number of respects. The PCR
court considered the record, heard testimony from a number of
witnesses and received additional evidence, and carefully
considered each of Hameed's claims, finding them be
without merit or non-prejudicial. On our de novo review, we
conclude Hameed's counsel was not ineffective in his
representation, and we affirm.
previously set out the underlying facts resulting in
Hameed's conviction for third-degree sexual abuse, and we
need not repeat them here. See State v. Hameed, No.
12-1630, 2013 WL 3458095, at *1-2 (Iowa Ct. App. July 10,
2013). This court noted Hameed admitted having sexual
intercourse with the complaining witness, and we found
substantial evidence existed to support the jury's
finding the sex act was committed by force or against the
will of the complainant. Id. at *4-6. Our supreme
court denied further review.
filed a PCR application. The facts of the PCR proceeding
revealed Hameed was the manager of an adult club in
Davenport, Iowa, known as the Chorus Line. The complaining
witness and a friend came to the club in March 2011 to attend
a Mardi Gras party. An employee refused to serve alcohol to
the complaining witness because she was under the legal
drinking age. As an employee was escorting her out of the
club, Hameed invited the complaining witness and her friend
to the back room. At the criminal trial, the complaining
witness and her friend testified that Hameed gave them each a
shot of an unknown substance and they blacked out shortly
thereafter. The State alleged the complaining witness became
incapacitated and Hameed had sex with her in the back room by
force and against her will.
the investigation, the police seized the club's computer
tower containing surveillance video. The police copied four
hours of the surveillance video from several camera angles
onto a thumb drive and returned the computer to Hameed. The
copied video captured the complaining witness entering the
club apparently unimpaired and stumbling out of the club with
the assistance of a man an hour and seventeen minutes later.
police produced an edited version of the surveillance video
on a DVD for use at trial. The edited version included clips
of the complaining witness entering and leaving the club. The
State produced a copy of the DVD for Hameed's first
attorney. Hameed dismissed his first attorney, and new
counsel appeared.Hameed's new trial counsel reviewed the
DVD. Trial counsel was satisfied and did not seek production
of the entire surveillance video. The PCR court found that
counsel breached a duty in not attempting to view the entire
surveillance video. However, the court concluded Hameed had
not established prejudice.
claimed the complaining witness was not intoxicated and came
on to him in the back room. He claimed the sex was
consensual. His trial counsel believed the clips of the
surveillance video on the DVD supported Hameed's version
of events. Hameed's trial counsel was an experienced
criminal defense attorney. He settled on a trial strategy
based on the theory that the complaining witness was not
intoxicated when she entered the club and the back room, she
was capable of consent, she consented to sex with Hameed, and
she became intoxicated after the sex act and before she left
the club. Trial counsel chose not to pursue other avenues and
did not call witnesses that did not support this theory of
claims that upon the return of the computer tower all the
surveillance video was deleted. He asserts the police
destroyed the full surveillance video. However, Hameed did
not have a forensic expert examine the hard drive. He put it
back into service and recorded over it. Hameed does not know
what was on the surveillance video and cannot say how it
would have helped his defense. The police deny destroying the
surveillance video. The evidence presented on this issue at
the PCR trial would not support a spoliation
respect to Hameed's claims that counsel did not call
defense witnesses, one of the potential witnesses, Jillian
Caves, testified at the PCR trial. Trial counsel testified he
chose not to call her at the criminal trial because he did
not believe her testimony would assist the defense.
wanted expert testimony about possible alcohol blackouts and
the effects of the prescription drug Adderall. There was
nothing presented that ...