from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas A.
Adams appeals from an order denying him postconviction
T. Hoover of Hoover Law Firm P.L.L.C., Epworth, for
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Darrel Mullins, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
postconviction-relief (PCR) appeal, Eddie Adams contends his
trial counsel and PCR counsel were ineffective. After a de
novo review, see Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856,
862 (Iowa 2012), we find no merit to Adams's arguments.
We affirm the PCR court's order denying Adams relief.
found Adams guilty of first-degree robbery, possession of an
illegal firearm, and possession of a firearm as a felon.
State v. Adams, No.11-1210, 2013 WL 4502303, at *1
(Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2013). We affirmed his judgment and
sentence. Id. at *7. Adams applied for PCR claiming
his trial counsel was ineffective in many ways, including
failure to object to the trial court's Allen
chargeto the jury and failure to have his DNA
expert conduct her own analysis of the evidence.
addressing the DNA expert issue, the PCR court determined,
Adams claims his DNA expert should have conducted his/her own
analysis of the evidence. The opinion from the Court of
Appeals mentions very briefly "the prosecutor's
comment on the fact that his (Adams) DNA expert did not
independently test the materials that the State's expert
tested." On appeal, this issue was raised as an
allegation of prosecutorial misconduct. [Trial counsel] says
he hired a DNA expert from St. Louis. No further evidence was
presented to this court regarding the DNA issue, and whether
independent testing would have made any difference. Based
upon the record, it would be pure speculation for this court
to assume that either the testing by the State's expert
was inaccurate or incorrect, or that independent testing by
Adams's expert would have revealed any different
court did not address the Allen charge issue.
Adams's PCR counsel did not ask the court to expand its
order. Adams appeals the court's denial of his PCR
succeed on an ineffective-assistance claim, a PCR applicant
must establish that counsel breached a duty and prejudice
resulted. See Lamasters, 821 N.W.2d at 866. We may
affirm a ruling rejecting an ineffective-assistance claim if
either element is lacking. See id.
first contends his trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to have his DNA expert independently test the evidence. To
meet the prejudice prong of ineffective assistance of counsel
one must show "that there is a reasonable probability
that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result
of the proceeding would have been different."
Id. (citation omitted). Asserting the error
"conceivably could have influenced the outcome" of
the proceeding is not enough. Id. (citation
omitted); see also Dunbar v. State, 515 N.W.2d 12,
15 (Iowa 1994) (claiming defense counsel did not fully
investigate a case requires an applicant to state what an
investigation would have revealed or how anything discovered
would have affected the result of the trial); Grayson v.
State, No.17-0919, 2018 WL 347552, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App.
Jan. 10, 2018) ("Mere speculation as to the existence of
exculpatory evidence is insufficient to show such evidence
probably would have changed the outcome of trial.").
Adams does not even suggest more DNA testing of the evidence
would have changed the outcome of his criminal trial. Rather,
he asserts "[b]y the time the PCR came around the items
were no longer around to test," so we should overrule
precedent and allow him a new trial so he can argue
spoliation to the jury. We decline to do so.
allegation that the evidence was no longer around to test is
not supported by a reference to the record. See Iowa
R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3) (requiring references to the
pertinent parts of the record in accordance with rule
6.904(4)). We need not search a record to verify unreferenced
facts. See Channon v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 629
N.W.2d 835, 866 (Iowa 2001). Even so, we found nothing in our
review of the record to support Adams's allegation the
items were unavailable for testing at the time of the PCR
proceedings. But even if the items were unavailable for
testing, Adams fails to show that the State deliberately
destroyed the evidence-a requirement that he ...