from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica
Zrinyi Wittig, Judge.
Pendleton appeals the district court's denial of his
application for postconviction relief.
M. McIntee, Waterloo, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kyle Hanson, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Mullins, JJ.
found Jacolby Pendleton guilty of second-degree robbery. The
district court sentenced him to a prison term not exceeding
ten years, subject to a seventy-percent mandatory minimum
term. The court of appeals affirmed his judgment and
sentence. State v. Pendleton, No. 13-1647, 2014 WL
6977188, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2014).
filed a postconviction-relief application, which was denied
following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Pendleton (1)
challenges the specificity of the postconviction court's
findings of fact, (2) contends his mandatory minimum sentence
constituted cruel and unusual punishment, and (3) argues his
attorneys were ineffective in several respects.
Findings of Fact
argues the postconviction court failed to make specific
findings of fact relating to (1) an alternate juror's
observation of him in shackles and the juror's
transmission of the information to other jurors; (2) his
claim that trial counsel did not adequately advise him of the
terms of a plea offer; and (3) his claim that trial counsel
failed to object to hearsay statements made by a police
is correct that a postconviction court has an obligation to
address "all the issues raised."
Gamble v. State, 723 N.W.2d 443, 446 (Iowa 2006).
The postconviction court did so. On the first issue, the
Trial counsel moved for all appropriate motions including a
motion for mistrial as a result of a juror seeing the
applicant in shackles when the trial broke for lunch. The
juror was brought before the court and the decision was made
to release that individual as the alternate. Once trial
counsel found out that the juror has said something to his
fellow jurors about what he saw, the person was again brought
before the court to testify to what happened in support of a
motion for new trial.
postconviction court concluded "curative action was
taken" by the district court.
second issue-the advice Pendleton received about the terms of
a plea offer-the postconviction court summarized
Pendleton's testimony concerning his discussions with his
trial attorney, then determined Pendleton "may have had
some deficits when it came to knowledge of the law, but
understanding the difference between having to serve 7 years
before one can be eligible for parole versus serving a
'straight' 10 with good time credit is not a
difficult concept to grasp." The court further stated,
"Trial counsel explained this to him with as much
clarity as possible. He insisted on going to trial to clear
his name. Furthermore, he did not offer credible evidence
that his decision was not knowing and voluntary."
final issue-counsel's claimed failure to object to the
officer's hearsay testimony about a non-testifying alibi
witness-was not raised by Pendleton at the
postconviction-relief hearing. ...