IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 19-1964

Filed October 6, 2021

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MICHAEL S. HECK,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Stephen A. Owen, 

District Associate Judge.

Michael Heck appeals his jury conviction for assault causing bodily injury. 

AFFIRMED.

Cathleen J. Siebrecht of Siebrecht Law Firm, Des Moines, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Zachary Miller, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., Greer, J., and Blane, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 

(2021).
2

BLANE, Senior Judge.

In October 2019, a jury found Michael Shawn Heck guilty of assault causing 

bodily injury. He appeals, arguing substantial evidence does not support the 

conviction and his attorney was ineffective in failing to object to a jury instruction. 

Because we find substantial evidence supports the verdict and we are without 

authority to hear the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, we affirm. 

I. Facts and Background Proceedings

Heck and his girlfriend L.M. lived with their son S.H. in an apartment in Boone.

L.M.’s brother, Jacob, lived with his girlfriend, Heather, a short distance away in 

the same apartment complex. Heck and L.M. arranged for Jacob and Heather to 

babysit S.H. while they went on a date. 

Around 3:00 a.m., L.M. called Jacob requesting he come and pick her up

because she and Heck had been in an argument. Jacob picked up L.M. and 

brought her back to his apartment. Later, Heck showed up, an argument ensued, 

and Heck punched Jacob in the face, breaking his nose. Heather called the police, 

but Heck left before they arrived. Heck was charged with domestic abuse assault 

against L.M. and assault causing bodily injury against Jacob, in violation of Iowa 

Code sections 708.1(2) and 708.2(2) (2019), a serious misdemeanor. 

At trial, Heck argued self-defense but he did not testify or present evidence. 

The jury found Heck not guilty of domestic abuse assault against L.M., but guilty 

of assault causing bodily injury against Jacob. The court sentenced Heck to one 

year in jail. Heck appeals.
3

II. Scope and Standards of Review

We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for correction of 

errors at law. State v. Donahue, 957 N.W.2d 1, 7 (Iowa 2021). We uphold the 

verdict if it is supported by substantial evidence. Id. Evidence is substantial when 

it would convince a rational fact finder of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable 

doubt. Id. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Id. And 

we include all legitimate inferences and presumptions that may reasonably be 

deduced from the evidence. Id. We consider all the evidence in the record and 

not just the evidence supporting the finding of guilt. State v. Robinson, 859 N.W.2d 

464, 467 (Iowa 2015).

III. Analysis

Heck argues the verdict should be overturned because there is a “lack of 

evidence, lack of information and cooperation from the witnesses, combined with 

Michael’s right to defend himself and being justified in attempting to retrieve his 

child all raise questions beyond a reasonable doubt.” The court instructed the jury 

on what the State had to prove to find Heck guilty: 

The State must prove all of the following elements 

of . . . [a]ssault [c]ausing [b]odily [i]njury:

1. . . . [Heck] either did an act which was meant to: 

. . . .

d. cause pain or injury to the victim; and/or

e. result in physical contact which was insulting or offensive 

to the victim; and/or

f. place the victim in fear of immediate physical contact which 

would have been painful, injurious, insulting or offensive.

2. [Heck] had the apparent ability to do the act.

3. [Heck’s] act caused a bodily injury to Jacob . . . . 
4

The jury instructions also defined “bodily injury” as “physical pain, illness or any 

impairment of physical condition.” On Heck’s defense of justification, the court 

instructed the jury: 

A person is justified in using reasonable force if he believes 

the force is necessary to defend himself from any imminent use of 

unlawful force.

If the state has proved any one of following elements, [Heck] 

was not justified: 

1. [Heck] started or continued the incident that resulted in 

injury. . . .

Both Jacob and Heather testified at trial. Jacob testified he and Heather 

were at their home with L.M. and heard a loud noise, which was Heck knocking on 

the front door. Heather testified Heck was saying, “Open the door. I want my son.” 

Jacob went to the front door but stopped and sat on the stairs inside the residence. 

Even though Jacob told her not to, L.M. opened the door. Heck and L.M. started 

arguing. Heather testified Heck “wanted [S.H.]” and was angry and aggressive. 

L.M. told Heck to go home, and he “[k]ind of just moved her aside and said, “no, 

I’m here to pick up [S.H.]” 

After L.M. “got pushed,” the fight “escalat[ed].” Jacob estimated the 

argument between Heck and L.M. became physical within thirty seconds. Jacob, 

still seated on the stairs, told Heck “I think [you] should go before the law gets 

involved.” Heck came inside the residence and asked if Jacob was going to call

the cops. Jacob said no, and Heck threatened to “beat [Jacob’s] ass.” Then, 

according to Jacob, “[h]e just started hitting me.” Jacob estimated Heck hit him in 

the face with both fists around fifteen times. Heather saw Heck hit Jacob at least 

twice in the face before she ran back to the kitchen and called the police.
5

During the altercation, L.M. intervened and tried to get Heck to stop hitting 

Jacob. She was briefly knocked unconscious and fell to the floor. Once Heck 

realized this, he stopped hitting Jacob. Jacob then picked up a crowbar and told 

Heck to leave. They struggled over the crowbar but Heck left after Heather called 

police. At the hospital, Jacob was treated for a broken nose and deviated septum. 

At trial, Jacob admitted that at first he was reluctant to assist the police and 

considered the incident a family matter. Heather also testified she did not want to 

get Heck in trouble. 

Despite their initial reluctance to press charges against Heck, Jacob and 

Heather’s trial testimony provides substantial evidence that Heck committed an 

assault causing bodily injury against Jacob. He punched Jacob repeatedly and 

hard enough to break his nose. Even in the argument beforehand, Heck 

threatened Jacob with painful or injurious contact stating he would “beat [his] ass.” 

Heck had the apparent ability to do so, having pushed his way past L.M. into 

Jacob’s apartment. Based upon the evidence at trial, a reasonable juror would 

find the State proved Heck committed an assault causing Jacob bodily injury. 

As to the justification defense, Heck suggests Jacob threatened him with 

the crowbar over which they tussled. But Jacob’s uncontroverted testimony is that 

only after Heck had punched him in the face numerous times did Jacob grab the 

crowbar. Heck points out no evidence to the contrary. Evidence in the record 

does not show that Heck was defending himself from any imminent use of unlawful 

force by L.M. or Jacob. The jury was instructed on Heck’s justification defense 

and by its verdict, rejected it. We find substantial evidence supports the jury’s 

verdict. 
6

Finally Heck argues in this direct appeal, without acknowledging statutory 

changes that have been in effect for two years, that his trial counsel was ineffective 

in failing to object to a jury instruction. Iowa Code section 814.7 prohibits us from 

deciding an ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. See also State v. 

Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 103 n. 1 (Iowa 2020) (finding effective date of 2019 

amendments to Iowa Code sections 814.6 and 814.7 was July 1, 2019, and “[t]he 

determinative date is the date of the judgment of sentence that is appealed, not 

whether the appeal was pending on July 1, 2019”); State v. Jordan, 959 N.W.2d 

395, 399 (Iowa 2021) (clarifying that amended section 814.7 “does not limit 

jurisdiction; it limits the authority of Iowa’s appellate courts to resolve ineffectiveassistance claims on direct appeal”). We lack authority to consider this issue. 

IV. Conclusion

Because substantial evidence supports the verdict and we are without 

authority to consider the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED.