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.

Hoskins v. State

Court of Appeals of Iowa

February 6, 2019

CALVIN ORLANDO HOSKINS, Applicant-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee.

          Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt, Judge.

         Calvin Hoskins appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief.

          Jeremy L. Merrill of Lubinus Law Firm, PLLC, Des Moines, for appellant.

          Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Benjamin Parrott, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.

          Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.

          MULLINS, JUDGE.

         Calvin Hoskins appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR). He contends: (1) the district court erred in denying relief on his claim the State committed a Brady[1] violation in conjunction with his prosecution and (2) his PCR counsel was ineffective in not arguing his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance in not moving to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a warrantless search of his person.

         I. Background Facts and Proceedings

         A jury convicted Hoskins of third-offense possession of marijuana. Hoskins subsequently admitted to facts necessary for sentencing enhancement as a habitual offender. This court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. See generally State v. Hoskins, No. 12-1857, 2013 WL 4769586 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2013). In November 2013, Hoskins filed a PCR application alleging "evidence was destroyed" or "tampered with" by the State. In his testimony at the subsequent PCR trial, Hoskins generally complained that his trial attorney was ill-prepared for trial and additionally should have objected to the State's failure to preserve a "hard plastic card" used to scrape marijuana out of his mouth as evidence and for DNA testing. Hoskins and his counsel stated his complaints as follows:

[T]here was no motion to suppress based on . . . a chain of custody from the [plastic] card and then there was no effort to get DNA testing done. . . . And my . . . lawyer wasn't prepared.

         At the close of evidence, the court essentially asked for a clarification of the issues it was to consider:

So, as I understand this, Mr. Hoskins here is arguing that his . . . lawyer should have filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the marijuana because the card used to scrape it from his mouth allegedly was not placed into evidence.
Okay. And . . . secondly, that he is arguing that he should get a new trial because his lawyer did not attempt to collect . . . or get evidence of DNA off of the marijuana or the card.
Okay. Then thirdly, . . . it appears that Mr. Hoskins is arguing in a general fashion the specific instances that his ...

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.