IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21

- 0954 Filed August 3, 2022

ALVIS T. SAYEE , Applicant

- Appellant,

vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent

- Appellee.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Martha L. Mertz , Judge.

Alvis Sayee appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief.
AFFIRMED.

Heidi Miller of Gribble, Boles, Stewart & Witosky Law, Des Moines , for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sheryl Soich , Assistant Attorney General, for appell ee State.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Badding, JJ.2

TABOR , Judge

. Alvis Sayee pleaded guilty to lascivious acts with a child. After judgm ent and sentencing, he sought postconviction relief (PCR) . He now appeals the PCR
denial , alleg ing trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate text messages on the victim’s phone, claiming they were doctored by the victim’s mother.
Because Sayee did not show his counsel’s performance was deficient , we affirm. Twenty

- year - old Sayee rendezvoused at a Super 8 with a girl whom he met online. They spent the weekend together. Meanwhile, the girl’s mother reported her missing. On her daughter’s phone, the mother found “ chats” with Sayee , and alerted police

. After arresting him, t he of ficers read texts that Sayee had sent “proposing sex” with the girl. During his police interview, Sayee also admitted the sexual nature of the encounter.
T he State charged him with enticing a minor, two counts of sexual abuse, and harboring a runaway c hild. He later accepted the prosecutor’s plea offer to one count of lascivious acts with a child in violation of Iowa Code section 709.8(1)(b) (2019)

. Sayee claimed at the plea hearing that he thought the victim was sixteen years old . But he acknowledge d she was only thirteen when he encouraged her to touch his genitals. A few months after the district court sentenced Sayee to a suspended ten

year term , he applied for PCR. He alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for not investigating the authenti city of text messages attributed to him. In a deposition, Sayee’s trial counsel defended his strategy: [T] he text messages, in my interpretation and my analysis of the case, although they were not good with regard to the defense of my client

— they were i ncriminating

— they weren ’ t the key focus of my3
defense of my client. There were more important things that I was worried about trying to defend, such as his admissions. But if I recall correctly, the text messages came from the girl ’ s phone, because her mom allowed the officers to access it. The district court denied relief, explaining that Sayee d id not show how investigating the text messages would have changed the voluntariness of his guilty plea . What’s more, the court found, “ Trial counsel’s p retrial investigation was more than adequate. ” We ordinarily review PCR proceedings for errors at law. Lamasters v. State , 821 N.W.2d 856, 862 (Iowa 2012). But w e review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. Ledezma v. State , 626 N.W.2d 134, 141 (Iowa 2001). PCR applicants who allege ineffective assistance must show counsel breached a duty and prejudice resulted. Castro v. State , 795 N.W.2d 789, 794 (Iowa 2011)

. On the duty prong, Sayee must prove trial counsel performed below t he standard demanded of a “reasonably competent attorney” as measured by “prevailing professional norms.” See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). A challenge to counsel’s performance in a guilty

- plea case requires different proof than for a conviction following trial. That is because a defendant generally

“ waives all defenses and objections to the criminal proceedings by pleading guilty , including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel

. ” Castro , 795 N.W.2d at 792. But we recognize an exception to that waiver for claims “ predicated on the failure of counsel to perform certain pre

- plea tasks that ultimately render the plea involuntary or unknowing. ” Id. at 792

– 93 (citing State v. Carroll , 767 N.W.2d 638, 642 (I owa 2009) )

. Thus, when a n applicant properly alleges ineffective assistance after a guilty plea , we must decide whether counsel breached a duty before the4

plea and whether any such breach rendered the plea unintelligent or involuntary. See Carroll

, 767 N .W.2d at 644. Without question, defense counsel “has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.” Strickland , 466 U.S. at 691

. Highlighting that duty, Sayee argues, “ An in vestigation into the validity and source of the text message was necessary to call into question the credibility of the alleged victim and therefore necessary to present an adequate defense on [his] behalf. ”
But as trial counsel detailed in his PCR testimony, in representing Sayee,
he reviewed the county attorney’s file, including police reports , statements, and a video

- recorded interview with his client. Counsel also visited Sayee several times at the jail. And he depos ed the State’s witnesses

. A f ter depositions were completed, the State offered to amend the trial information to a single, non - forcible felony, which allowed Sayee to argue for probation. After “talking about the benefits” of that offer with defense counsel, Sayee decided to plead g uilty. At that stage, counsel reasonably could have believed that further investigation was “unwarranted.” See Ledezma , 626 N.W.2d at 145 (noting “the duty to investigate is not unlimited ” ). Because Sayee failed to show counsel performed below
constitut ional norms , we need not reach the prejudice question

. See State v.
Russell , 897 N.W.2d 717, 730 (Iowa 2017) (“[I] f one prong is not met, the other
need not be addressed .”). We thus affirm the dismissal of his PCR application.
AFFIRMED.