IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 19-0853

Filed November 4, 2020

LORENZO QUINTANAR,

Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson, 

Judge.

Lorenzo Quintanar appeals from the district court ruling denying his 

application for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.

John Audlehelm of Audlehelm Law Office, Des Moines, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee State.

Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.
2

AHLERS, Judge.

Lorenzo Quintanar pleaded guilty to the serious misdemeanor charge of 

possession of marijuana in 2001. See Iowa Code § 124.401(5) (2001). His guilty 

plea was accepted, and he was sentenced in August 2001. In 2018, Quintanar 

filed an application for postconviction relief (PCR). He alleged he received 

ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney allowed him to plead guilty 

to the offense without informing Quintanar of the immigration consequences of 

pleading guilty. See Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 374 (2010) (holding 

counsel’s failure to inform a client whether the client’s plea carries a risk of 

deportation is constitutionally deficient performance).

The PCR case went to trial. Following trial, the district court issued a ruling

in which it made a factual determination that Quintanar failed to establish that his 

trial counsel failed to adequately inform him of the immigration consequences of 

his guilty plea. Finding no adequate proof of trial counsel’s breach of duty to 

provide effective representation, the district court dismissed the PCR application 

on this basis.

The district court also made determinations that the federal and state case 

law addressing a defendant’s right to be advised of immigration consequences 

before pleading guilty did not apply retroactively. Furthermore, the district court 

ruled, even if the case law did apply retroactively, Quintanar’s PCR claim was timebarred. See Iowa Code § 822.3 (2018) (requiring PCR applications to be filed 

within three years after the conviction is final). The district court dismissed the 

PCR application on this basis as well.
3

Quintanar appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his PCR 

application. On appeal, he challenges the district court’s decision regarding 

retroactive application of the federal and state case law relating to the obligation 

of counsel to advise a client of immigration consequences of a guilty plea.

We need not and do not address the issues Quintanar raises on appeal. 

Even if Quintanar could persuade us that the issues he raises on appeal should 

be decided in his favor, it would not overcome the fact that Quintanar lost on the 

merits and has not challenged that loss on appeal.

As noted, the relief Quintanar seeks is based on a claim of ineffective 

assistance of trial counsel. To prevail on such a claim, Quintanar must establish 

(1) trial counsel failed to perform an essential duty and (2) the failure resulted in 

prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Counsel’s 

performance is presumed to be competent. State v. Russell, 897 N.W.2d 717, 730 

(Iowa 2017). It is the applicant’s burden to show ineffective assistance of counsel 

by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.

Here, following a trial on the merits, Quintanar failed to convince the district 

court, as the fact-finder, that his trial counsel had not advised him of the 

immigration consequences of his guilty plea before he entered that plea—his only 

argument in support of his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. As a result, the 

district court made factual and legal findings that Quintanar failed to prove his 

counsel’s performance was defective and dismissed his application as a result of 

his failure to meet his burden of proof. This is a loss on the merits, and Quintanar 

does not challenge the loss on appeal. No challenge having been made to the 

factual and legal conclusions that are dispositive on the merits, the district court’s 
4

ruling must be affirmed. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3) (“Failure to cite 

authority in support of an issue may be deemed waiver of that issue.”). 

AFFIRMED.