from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County,
Jeffrey L. Larson, Judge.
Blomdahl appeals from the denial of his application for
postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
D. Nerenstone, Council Bluffs, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.
POTTERFIELD, PRESIDING JUDGE.
Blomdahl appeals from the denial of his application for
postconviction relief (PCR). On our de novo review, we
conclude Blomdahl's claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel fail and, therefore, affirm.
Background Facts and Proceedings.
previously summarized the facts leading to Blomdahl's
conviction for prostitution. State v. Blomdahl, No.
13-0521, 2014 WL 1234214, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 26,
2014). While Blomdahl's defense at trial was that he was
simply looking for companionship and made no offer of money
in exchange for sex, the evidence supported the following
In October 2012, Blomdahl responded to an escort ad placed
on a website by the Council Bluffs Police Department as
part of a sting operation. He called the number listed and
spoke to a law enforcement officer who was acting as an
escort named "Stacy." During the phone
conversation, Blomdahl set up a half-hour appointment for
the listed price of $150 and specified the sex acts he
wanted to perform during the appointment. The next day, he
met "Stacy" at a hotel room and again stated the
sex acts he wanted to engage in. Blomdahl patted his pocket
to indicate he had money and showed some of it.
Id. His conviction was upheld on appeal.
Id. at *2.
then filed a PCR application, asserting trial counsel was
ineffective in: (1) orally waiving Blomdahl's ninety-day
speedy-trial right and exceeded his authority in doing so;
(2) failing to conduct reasonable and necessary pretrial
investigation; (3) failing to seek exclusion of trial exhibit
4 "(backpage.com escort listings from January 4-February
1, 2013) and related testimony and closing arguments about
the exhibit for one or more of the following reasons:
hearsay; improper foundation; irrelevant and immaterial to
the incident on October 10, 2012; unduly prejudicial; or
improper propensity evidence"; (4) failing to seek
exclusion of trial exhibit 10 (folder with backpage.com
printouts from September-October 2012 and mapping) as it was
seized during an improper search of his vehicle; (5) failing
to seek exclusion of data seized from his cellphone because
the search warrant was "based solely on an officer's
unsigned affidavit and . . . referenced an incident on
December 10, 2012"; (6) failing to object to trial
exhibit 13 on grounds of hearsay, improper foundation,
improper propensity evidence, and derivative evidence from an
illegally issued search warrant for his cellphone; (7)
failing to object on grounds the opinions lacked proper
foundation to opinion testimony by Detective Greg Chase
during direct examination by the State and in closing
arguments concerning his expert opinions about what
"incall" means in prostitution, the going rates for
prostitutes, what websites "johns" use looking for
prostitutes, differences between dating and escort websites,
and that the undercover agent developed probable cause for a
prostitution crime; (8) "failing to object to
testimonial evidence at trial from Detective Greg Chase
during re-direct examination by the State and in closing
arguments concerning 'coded talk' used by prostitutes
as beyond the scope of cross-examination and for lack of
foundation for expert opinion"; (9) failing to object on
grounds of lack of foundation to testimony by Special Agent
Ashley Jones ("Stacy") concerning opinions as to
what "incall" and "outcall" mean in
prostitution; (10) "failing to object to testimonial
evidence at trial from Detective Brian Hamilton and in
closing arguments concerning his expert opinions about
'code talk' or 'code language' used in
prostitution"; (11) failing to object to testimony of
Detective Brian Hamilton during direct examination and noted
in closing arguments that Blomdahl "did not wish to
speak with you during his interview" as a comment on the
exercise of his right to remain silent; (12) stating in
opening Blomdahl would testify and then not presenting his
testimony; (13) failing to properly advise him concerning the
no-inference-of-guilt jury instruction and ensuring there was
a record on Blomdahl's decision; (14) failing to object
to the prosecutor's statement in closing that the
defendant's presumption of innocence is gone; and (15)
failing to file and pursue an entrapment defense. He also
asserted trial counsel's failings resulted in cumulative
and structural error and appellate counsel was ineffective in
not raising the issues.
court entered a ruling in which the court summarized
Blomdahl's claims,  addressed the issues, and denied
relief. With respect to Blomdahl's claim that counsel was
ineffective in waiving his speedy-trial rights, the PCR court
noted Blomdahl appeared in person and with his attorney on
January 15, 2013, and waived the right to speedy trial.
Further, even if defense counsel waived his right, Iowa law
recognizes defense counsel has the authority to waive the
right for the client.
court found the seizure of Blomdahl's car was invalid,
counsel should have filed a motion to suppress, and the
evidence obtained searching the vehicle should not have been
presented at trial. However, the PCR court ruled Blomdahl
failed to prove the result of the trial would have been
different had the advertisements seized from Blomdahl's
car not been entered into evidence because the State's
case consisted of ...