IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 14-1532

Filed July 22, 2015

LONNIE BATES JR.,

Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mary E. Howes, 

Judge.

An applicant appeals the district court’s denial of his application for 

postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.

Thomas J. OʼFlaherty of OʼFlaherty Law Firm, Bettendorf, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney 

General, Michael J. Walton, County Attorney, and Melisa Zaehringer, Assistant 

County Attorney, for appellee State.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.
2

VOGEL, P.J.

Lonnie Bates filed an application for postconviction relief (PCR), asserting 

among other claims, his trial counsel was ineffective in not obtaining a DNA 

sample from other potential suspects for use in his defense. The district court 

rejected this claim, affirming Bates’s conviction. Bates appeals claiming the 

district court made an error in the factual findings in its ruling. Upon our de novo 

review of the record, we conclude the factual error made by the court did not 

affect the court’s decision. We agree with the court’s conclusion that Bates failed 

to prove his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when she did not seek

to obtain DNA samples from other potential suspects.

Following a jury trial, Bates was convicted of second-degree sexual 

abuse. State v. Bates, No. 10-1666, 2012 WL 3027122, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. July 

25, 2012). The facts of the assault are adequately outlined in the direct appeal 

decision, and there is no need repeat them here. See id. After his conviction 

was affirmed, Bates filed an application for postconviction relief alleging a 

number of ways that his attorney was ineffective, including a claim his trial

attorney should have obtained DNA samples from the other adults who were 

present at the scene when the assault took place. The testimony at trial and the 

testimony developed at the PCR hearing established that DNA testing was done 

on the victim’s clothing and body, and on Bates’s clothing. The testing did not 

reveal any foreign DNA on either the victim or Bates. All testing done on the 
3

victim’s clothing and body showed only the presence of the victim’s DNA.1 All 

testing done on Bates’s clothing showed only the presence of Bates’s DNA. 

In the factual findings made by the PCR court, the court stated that 

Bates’s attorney testified there was DNA from Bates on the victim. While this 

was an inaccurate statement of the attorney’s testimony in the PCR hearing, the 

court went on to accurately state that the attorney also testified at the PCR 

hearing there was no foreign DNA on the victim that was not identified. Because 

of the lack of foreign DNA in the record, the PCR court concluded “it would have 

been a pointless tactic in any event” to request DNA testing of the other adults at 

the scene. 

Our review of a postconviction-relief action alleging ineffective assistance 

of counsel is de novo. See Dempsey v. State, 860 N.W.2d 860, 868 (Iowa 

2015). We make our own independent evaluation of the totality of the relevant 

circumstances, though we do give deference to the district court’s credibility 

assessments. Taylor v. State, 352 N.W.2d 683, 684, 687 (Iowa 1984). In a de 

novo review, we carefully scrutinize the record and make our own findings of fact. 

See Soults Farms, Inc. v. Schafer, 797 N.W.2d 92, 97 (Iowa 2011). Thus, we 

need not reverse and remand for a new PCR hearing based solely on errors in 

the factual findings of the district court’s decision. Any errors can be adequately 

addressed on appeal without the need for a remand.

 

1 We do note a sample taken from the victim’s fingernail scrapings showed DNA that 

was too weak for a conclusive determination other than it was DNA from a male. 

Because the sample was too weak, it could not have been tested to determine if it 

matched other known DNA samples even if those samples had been obtained 
4

In order to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Bates 

must prove by a preponderance of the evidence counsel breached an essential 

duty and he suffered prejudice as a result. Taylor, 352 N.W.2d at 685. The facts 

developed at trial and at the PCR hearing establish there was no foreign DNA 

found on either the victim or Bates. Thus, obtaining DNA samples from the other 

adults who were present at the scene of the assault would have been a fruitless 

exercise. There was no unidentified DNA to which the known samples from the 

other adults could have been compared. Because obtaining the samples would 

not have affected the outcome of the trial, Bates cannot prove he was prejudiced 

by counsel’s inaction. See Dempsey, 860 N.W.2d at 868 (noting we need not 

address both elements of the ineffective-assistance test as a defendant’s failure 

to establish either element is fatal to the claim). 

AFFIRMED.