from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Kellyann
M. Lekar, Judge.
applicant appeals from the denial of his application for
Hobbs, West Des Moines, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.
POTTERFIELD, PRESIDING JUDGE.
Truax appeals from the denial of his application for
postconviction relief (PCR). In 2012, a jury convicted Truax
of two counts of lascivious acts with a child. See
Iowa Code § 709.8 (2009). He was later sentenced to
serve two consecutive ten-year terms of imprisonment.
filed a direct appeal, in which his only challenge was the
sentence imposed by the district court. See State v.
Truax, No. 13-0242, 2014 WL 970034, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App.
Mar. 12, 2014). He argued the court failed to give adequate
reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. A panel of our
court affirmed the sentence, and procedendo issued in June
filed his PCR application in October 2015. He amended it once
before it came on for hearing in January 2018. Truax
maintained the underlying trial information charged him with
two class "D" felonies, which were improperly
amended to two class "C" felonies after trial but
prior to sentencing. He also claimed his trial and appellate
counsel provided ineffective assistance in a number of ways.
The PCR court denied the petition in its entirety.
appeal, Truax renews most of his PCR claims. He challenges
the amendment to the trial information and urges us to find
trial and appellate counsel ineffective, arguing the
following errors: failing to object to vouching, hearsay, and
more-prejudicial-than-probative evidence; poor performance at
trial due to substandard trial preparation; and failure to
object to prosecutorial misconduct.
generally review PCR proceedings for correction of errors at
law. Allison v. State, 914 N.W.2d 866, 870 (Iowa
2018). That being said, we review constitutional claims, such
as ineffective assistance of counsel, de novo. Id.
begin with Truax's claim that the trial information was
improperly amended, changing the offenses Truax was charged
with from two class "D" felonies to two class
"C" felonies. As Truax notes, in ruling on his
direct appeal, our court stated in passing that the
description of the charges against Truax as "D"
felonies in the trial information "was a scrivener's
error." Truax, 2014 WL 970034, at *1 n.1.
Relying on that statement, the PCR court refused to address
Truax continues to argue that either the trial information
was never amended or, at the least, that it was not properly
amended. But we iterate our previous statement that the error
in the description was simply a scrivener's error, which