IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 17-0551

Filed December 6, 2017

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

ROBERT DANIEL CHURCH,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

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

Judge.

A defendant appeals his conviction asserting his trial counsel provided 

ineffective assistance. AFFIRMED.

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa R. Wilson, Assistant 

Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kyle P. Hanson, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.
2

VOGEL, Presiding Judge.

Robert Church appeals following his guilty pleas to assault with the intent 

to commit sexual abuse and possession of marijuana. See Iowa Code 

§§ 124.401(5), 709.11 (2016). He asserts his counsel provided ineffective 

assistance by permitting him to plead guilty when he had not been informed 

regarding various consequences of his guilty plea. Specifically, he claims trial 

counsel misinformed him of the duration of his obligation to register with the sex 

offender registry, counsel failed to inform him of the special sentence applicable to 

the assault conviction or that the sentences for both offenses could have been run 

consecutively, and counsel failed to ensure the written guilty plea form for the 

possession charge advised him of the penalties for that offense. The State asserts 

the record is inadequate on direct appeal to address these claims, asking us to 

preserve them for postconviction relief.

Church acknowledges that no motion in arrest of judgment was filed in this 

case, so he raises these challenges to his guilty pleas through the lens of 

ineffective-assistance of counsel. State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128, 133 (Iowa 

2006) (noting a challenge to a guilty plea is not barred “if the failure to file a motion 

in arrest of judgment resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel”). To prove 

his ineffective-assistance claim, Church must prove counsel failed to perform an 

essential duty and the failure resulted in prejudice. See id. The prejudice burden 

requires proof “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he 

or she would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Id. 

When an ineffective-assistance claim is made on direct appeal, we must first 

determine whether the record is adequate to address the claim made. State v. 
3

Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192, 198 (Iowa 2010). “[M]ost claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel in the context of a guilty plea will require a record more 

substantial than the one [available on direct appeal].” Straw, 709 N.W.2d at 138. 

We note several concerning inconsistencies, discrepancies, and omissions 

in the guilty plea form Church signed that is part of our record on appeal. However, 

we also note that the order accepting Church’s guilty plea states that Church 

“appeared in person and with counsel.” In his “Request for Appeal,” Church 

mentioned that he “walked into the courtroom and pleaded guilty.” It thus appears 

there was an unreported guilty plea hearing involved in this case. Because this 

record does not contain evidence as to what occurred at that hearing and whether 

the court or counsel rectified the errors in the guilty plea form at the hearing, we 

conclude the record on appeal is not adequate to address Church’s claims that his 

trial counsel was ineffective with respect to the guilty plea. State v. Coil, 264 

N.W.2d 293, 296 (Iowa 1978) (“Even a lawyer is entitled to his day in court, 

especially when his professional reputation is impugned.”). We therefore preserve 

Church’s ineffective-assistance claims for a postconviction proceeding. See State 

v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192, 198 (Iowa 2010) (“If . . . the court determines the 

claim cannot be addressed on appeal, the court must preserve it for a 

postconviction-relief proceeding, regardless of the court’s view of the potential 

viability of the claim.”).

AFFIRMED.