IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-0707

Filed July 26, 2023

JOSHUA JARRETT,

Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buchanan County, Laura Parrish, 

Judge.

Joshua Jarrett appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief. 

AFFIRMED.

Benjamin Bergmann and Alexander Smith of Parrish, Kruidenier, Dunn, 

Gentry, Brown, Bergmann & Messamer, L.L.P., for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee State.

Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.
2

CHICCHELLY, Judge.

Joshua Jarrett appeals the district court’s denial of his application for 

postconviction relief (PCR), contending his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to 

properly “impeach[] the testimony of the complaining witness.” Upon our review, 

we affirm. 

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

In 2016, a Buchanan County jury found Jarrett guilty of second-degree 

sexual abuse, third-degree sexual abuse, and flight to avoid prosecution. See 

Iowa Code §§ 709.1, 709.3(2), 709.4(2)(b), 719.4(4) (2014). In its decision on 

direct appeal, this court provided the following summary of the facts giving rise to 

Jarrett’s conviction:

H.K. was known to Jarrett through H.K.’s mother. H.K.’s 

father is deceased; he died when H.K. was six years old. According 

to H.K., Jarrett first made her manually stimulate him shortly after her 

father’s death. H.K. did not tell her mother about this incident 

because Jarrett told her not to. On another occasion, when H.K. was 

eight years old, Jarrett made her perform oral sex on him. Again, 

H.K. did not disclose the abuse to her mother because Jarrett told 

H.K. not to and because she did not want her mother to be upset.

The sex acts that Jarrett made H.K. perform eventually 

progressed from manual and oral stimulation to anal and vaginal 

intercourse. If H.K. resisted, Jarrett would “be terrible” to H.K.’s 

mother afterwards. Jarrett initiated sexual encounters with H.K. 

more frequently as she grew older. At trial, when asked how many 

times Jarrett had sexual contact with her, H.K. responded it was “way 

too many to count.”

When H.K. was in fifth grade she was provided a cell phone. 

Jarrett began to initiate sexual contact by sending H.K. text 

messages after her bedtime. H.K. testified about the content of the 

messages, stating they would say, “‘Come meet me after your mom 

is asleep’ or ‘Come meet me in the living room’ or ‘Come meet me’

wherever.”

According to H.K., one night, when she was fourteen, Jarrett 

sent her a text message after her bedtime to “[c]ome get me after 

your mother is asleep.” H.K.’s mother saw H.K.’s phone light up 

when she received that message, and the mother grabbed the phone 
3

from H.K.’s hand. The mother read the text message, along with all 

of the other text messages from Jarrett to H.K. that told her to meet 

him after bedtime in various locations. H.K.’s mother and H.K. had 

a conversation outside of Jarrett’s presence; H.K. told her mother 

that “since the age of 6 . . . he would make [her] have vaginal, anal, 

and oral sex with him and that he would make [her] masturbate him.” 

H.K. was crying throughout her disclosure, and her mother was also 

upset. The mother confronted Jarrett. No one reported the abuse. 

H.K.’s mother made sure Jarrett was not alone with H.K., and Jarrett 

had no further sexual contact with H.K. from that point on.

H.K. reported the sexual abuse to law enforcement in August 

2014. When Jarrett learned that the police were looking for him to 

investigate H.K.’s reports of sexual abuse, he fled from the state—to 

Kansas, North Carolina, Colorado, and finally Texas, where he was 

apprehended.

State v. Jarrett, No. 17-0091, 2018 WL 1099268, at *1–2 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 21, 

2018). On appeal, this court rejected Jarrett’s various claims, including a challenge 

to the district court’s denial of the admission of a video-recorded Child Protective 

Center (CPC) interview of H.K. in which she “denied any sexual abuse by Jarrett.” 

Id. at *2. 

Jarrett filed this PCR application in 2019, claiming his trial counsel was 

ineffective in failing to get the CPC interview into evidence or question H.K. about 

her prior inconsistent statements. He filed a motion for summary disposition of his 

application, which the court denied. Following a hearing, the PCR court entered a

ruling denying Jarrett’s application. Jarrett appealed.

II. Standards of Review

“We ordinarily review PCR rulings for correction of errors at law. . . . But 

when the allegation is ineffective assistance [of] . . . counsel, we review de novo.”

Brooks v. State, 975 N.W.2d 444, 445 (Iowa Ct. App. 2022) (citations omitted).
4

III. Discussion

On appeal, Jarrett maintains his claim regarding trial counsel’s alleged 

ineffectiveness in failing to impeach H.K. with regard to her statements in the CPC 

interview in which she denied sexual abuse by Jarrett. He also challenges the 

PCR court’s denial of his motion for summary disposition on that claim. To prevail 

on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Jarrett must show (1) counsel 

breached an essential duty and (2) prejudice resulted. See Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). 

Additional facts relevant to resolution of Jarrett’s claim include the following. 

As noted above, H.K. testified Jarrett began sexually abusing her when she was 

six years old and the abuse continued until she was between thirteen and fourteen 

years old. The summer before H.K.’s freshman year, Jarrett’s daughter S. moved 

in with H.K.’s family. H.K. told S. about the abuse by Jarrett, and S. responded 

that Jarrett “had done it to her, too.” S. eventually disclosed the abuse, and the 

Department of Human Services (DHS) became involved with the family. As part 

of the DHS investigation, the CPC scheduled an interview of H.K. On the drive to 

the interview, H.K.’s mother “told [H.K.] to lie and say that it didn’t happen to [her] 

and say that [she] didn’t think it happened to [S.]” either. H.K.’s mother told H.K. 

that if she “didn’t lie,” then the kids would be “taken away” by DHS. And the mother 

“said if [H.K.] did [lie], then she would let [H.K.] decide if [Jarrett] stayed or [left the 

family home].” H.K. “was scared” and agreed that she “would lie.” Thereafter, 

during the interview, when H.K. was asked “if anything had happened, [she] said 

no.” On the drive home, the mother asked H.K. if she had lied; H.K. “said yes.” 

H.K. then “waited for her to ask . . . if [Jarrett] was going to stay or go,” but “she 
5

never did, and he came home.” Subsequently, H.K. reported Jarrett’s abuse to 

law enforcement. 

H.K. later “testified at Jarrett’s trial during the State’s case-in-chief and 

described the years of sexual abuse by Jarrett.” Jarrett, 2018 WL 1099268, at *2. 

But trial counsel “did not attempt to offer or cross-examine H.K. about her videorecorded CPC interview in which she had denied the abuse by Jarrett.” Id. at *3. 

At the PCR hearing, trial counsel1 stated he believed “the fact that the jury never 

learned that H.K. had previously denied the abuse prejudiced” Jarrett. 

On appeal, Jarrett contends the CPC interview was admissible under a 

number of evidentiary rules, including Iowa Code section 915.38(3) and Iowa 

Rules of Evidence 5.613, 5.703, and 5.104. He further argues “[t]he failure to get 

the CPC video into evidence was not a strategic decision” because “[g]etting the 

denial in would have complemented counsel’s strategy.” We noted on direct 

appeal, “Since H.K. testified at trial, the [CPC interview] was admissible for 

impeachment as a prior inconsistent statement.” Id. at *4. For purposes of 

evaluating Jarrett’s claim, we will assume without deciding that he could meet the 

procedural requirements of rule 5.613 and that the recorded statement could have 

complemented trial counsel’s strategy of challenging H.K.’s credibility. 

But Jarrett also must be able to establish the prejudice prong of his 

ineffective-assistance claim to be successful. See State v. Haas, 930 N.W.2d 699, 

703 (Iowa 2019); Dempsey v. State, 860 N.W.2d 860, 868 (Iowa 2015) (“The court 

1 During his criminal trial, Jarrett was represented by Clemens Erdahl and his cocounsel Eric Tindal. Erdahl passed away in 2019, before Jarrett took depositions 

in this PCR action. Accordingly, our references to trial counsel’s statements or 

testimony are with regard to Tindal. 
6

always has the option to decide the claim on the prejudice prong of the Strickland

test, without deciding whether the attorney performed deficiently.” (quoting State 

v. Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488, 501 n.2 (Iowa 2012))). In other words, Jarrett had to 

establish “a reasonable probability . . . the result of the proceeding would have 

been different” if trial counsel had elicited evidence regarding H.K’s statements 

during the CPC interview. See id. On this issue, Jarrett claims placing H.K.’s 

credibility in question “would have put this case into an entirely new light,” “with an 

impeached witness that the jury had to believe beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

The PCR court was not persuaded, finding:

[E]ven if questions had been asked of H.K. regarding her prior denial, 

the explanation for the denial was persuasive—that H.K.’s mother 

had told her to lie in order to avoid removal of the children in the 

home. Bringing that evidence before the jury would perhaps have 

only cemented the jury’s belief that H.K. was more credible than her 

mother at the time of trial. There is no guarantee, or even probable 

likelihood on these facts, that the prior denial would have 

strengthened Jarrett’s denials.

. . . . Even if counsel’s failure to get the videotaped CPC 

testimony before the jury, or their failure to conduct a different crossexamination of H.K. was determined to be ineffective, it was not 

prejudicial, and therefore, Jarrett’s claim must fail.

Indeed, at the PCR hearing, trial counsel acknowledged that if H.K.’s 

inconsistent statements had been raised, H.K. “would then claim that her mother 

put her under duress,” which “was an issue” for the defense. The jury had other 

reason to question H.K.’s mother’s credibility as well. For instance, when police 

spoke to her about H.K.’s allegations of abuse against Jarrett, she called Jarrett 

and told him “he probably needed to get home” because H.K. had reported the 

abuse and the police were involved. And as this court previously noted:

At trial, H.K.’s mother denied that H.K. had disclosed the 

sexual abuse when she caught Jarrett sending her the text message. 
7

Even so, she acknowledged that after that incident, she did not allow 

Jarrett and H.K. to be alone together. Jarrett did not deny that he 

sent the text messages to H.K. and also did not deny that H.K.’s 

mother confronted him about it, but he claimed he told her “it was 

nothing” and she should “just let it go.”

Jarrett, 2018 WL 1099268, at *2. The PCR court reiterated additional evidence 

corroborating H.K.’s testimony as follows:

In addition to the testimony of H.K., the jury in this case had 

other corroborating evidence to consider in reaching a guilty verdict: 

(1) the text message from Jarrett to H.K. was acknowledged by 

H.K.’s mother and Jarrett—without a reasonable explanation as to 

what it could have meant, other than exactly what H.K. said it 

meant—that she was supposed to get him for sexual contact after 

her mother was asleep and wouldn’t be aware; (2) H.K.’s mother’s

decision to prevent H.K. from being alone with Jarrett after seeing 

the text message; [and] (3) Jarrett’s response to the accusation was 

to abscond to Texas in an attempt to avoid contact with law

enforcement.

Upon our review, we agree Jarrett has failed to establish a reasonable 

probability, in light of all the evidence, that had H.K.’s testimony been impeached, 

the outcome would have been different. See Everett v. State, 789 N.W.2d 151, 

160 (Iowa 2010). In other words, he has not shown “the possibility that this 

evidence would have impugned [H.K.’s] credibility is sufficient to undermine 

confidence in the outcome.” Cf. Millam v. State, 745 N.W.2d 719, 724 (Iowa 2008)

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

Accordingly, we affirm the court’s denial of Jarrett’s motion for summary 

disposition on this claim and the denial of his PCR application.

AFFIRMED.