IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 20-0169

Filed December 15, 2021

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

JOSEPH DAVID PETERSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Angela L. Doyle, 

Judge.

Defendant appeals his convictions on two counts of sexual abuse in the 

second degree. AFFIRMED.

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

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

General, for appellee.

Considered by Bower, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Carr, S.J.*

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

(2021).
2

CARR, Senior Judge.

Joseph Peterson appeals his convictions on two counts of sexual abuse in 

the second degree. We find there is substantial evidence in the record to support 

the jury’s verdict. His claims of ineffective assistance of counsel may not be raised 

in this direct appeal. We affirm Peterson’s convictions.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

In March 2019, allegations arose that Peterson sexually abused his eightyear-old daughter, A.L. A.L. stated that while they had their clothes off, Peterson 

touched his “front butt” to her “front butt,” and that “front butt” meant the area

“where you go pee from.” She stated Peterson made her touch his “front butt” and 

“the thing that’s not pee” came out of Peterson’s “front butt.” She stated this 

happened “a lot.”

On March 29, Detective Larry Hedlund questioned Peterson while they were 

sitting in the officer’s unmarked vehicle. The interview was recorded. Peterson 

admitted touching A.L. sexually. Peterson stated A.L. would describe performing 

oral sex “maybe once.” Peterson stated that recently A.L. touched his penis with 

her hand for about five minutes until he ejaculated. He stated A.L. would ask him 

to “touch butts,” which meant him touching his penis to her vagina. He said the 

genital-to-genital touching happened maybe eight times.

After about forty-five minutes, Detective Hedlund asked Peterson to come 

to the police station. This interview was also recorded. Peterson admitted 

touching his penis to A.L.’s vagina twice when she was eight years old and six 

times when she was seven. He made additional statements similar to the ones 

made in the police vehicle—stating A.L. asked him to “touch butts,” and he would 
3

rub his penis on her vagina until he ejaculated. Peterson was visibly distraught 

during the interview. On April 19, 2019, Peterson was charged with two counts of 

second-degree sexual abuse, in violation of Iowa Code section 709.3(1)(b) (2019).

During the jury trial, A.L. testified describing in age-appropriate terms 

several instances of genital-to-genital or hand-to-genital contact with Peterson. A 

nurse practitioner, Julie Ritland, testified A.L. stated “he came in my room and then 

we did the private parts together. Both of ours. We’re not supposed to do that.” 

A.L. stated “he put his private on my front private.”

Peterson testified that he falsely confessed in an “attempt[ ] to protect my 

family, my kids.” He stated he wanted to make himself a “soft target,” or a “cover,” 

“shield.” He stated, “if [A.L.] was lying, they were going to send her away, run her 

through psych evals, brand her a liar.” Peterson recognized his explanation was 

“hard to believe.” 

The jury found Peterson guilty of two counts of second-degree sexual 

abuse. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment not to exceed twenty-five 

years on each count, to be served consecutively. Peterson now appeals.

II. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Peterson contends there is not sufficient evidence in the record to support 

the jury’s verdict. Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.21(4) provides, “The 

confession of the defendant, unless made in open court, will not warrant a 

conviction, unless accompanied with other proof that the defendant committed the 

offense.” Peterson asserts A.L.’s testimony does not corroborate his statements 

to Detective Hedlund because she did not identify a specific timeframe for the 
4

alleged incidents of sexual abuse. He also points out that there was no physical 

evidence of sexual abuse.

On claims concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, our review is for the 

correction of errors of law. State v. Folkers, 941 N.W.2d 337, 338 (Iowa 2020). 

“The district court’s findings of guilt are binding on appeal if supported by 

substantial evidence. Evidence is substantial if it would convince a rational trier of 

fact the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citations omitted). 

The Iowa Supreme Court has stated:

In making determinations regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, 

we “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, 

regardless of whether it is contradicted, and every reasonable

inference that may be deduced therefrom must be considered to

supplement that evidence.” If the record contains substantial

evidence to support the defendant’s conviction, we will uphold a trial

court’s denial of a motion of acquittal. “Evidence is substantial if it

would convince a rational trier of fact the defendant is guilty beyond

a reasonable doubt.” Evidence can be either circumstantial or direct,

or both.

State v. Lilly, 930 N.W.2d 293, 298 (Iowa 2019) (citations omitted).

The jury could find Peterson’s testimony that he falsely confessed was not 

credible. See State v. Neitzel, 801 N.W.2d 612, 624 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011) (“[T]he 

credibility of witnesses is for the factfinder to decide except those rare

circumstances where the testimony is absurd, impossible, or self-contradictory.”). 

His out-of-court statements to Detective Hedlund admitting that he had genital-togenital contact with A.L. were corroborated by the testimony of A.L. and Ritland. 

See State v. Polly, 657 N.W.2d 462, 466 (Iowa 2003) (discussing “other proof” 

needed to corroborate a confession). We find there is substantial evidence in the 
5

record to support Peterson’s convictions on two counts of second-degree sexual 

abuse.

III. Ineffective Assistance

Peterson claims he received ineffective assistance because defense 

counsel failed to (1) file a motion to suppress his statements to officers; (2) object 

to the admission of irrelevant photographic evidence; and (3) file a motion for a 

mistrial based on an officer’s testimony about seminal fluid when there was an 

agreement this evidence would not be mentioned.

Section 814.7 (Supp. 2019) prohibits Peterson from making a claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. Section 814.7 provides:

An ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a criminal case

shall be determined by filing an application for postconviction relief

pursuant to chapter 822. The claim need not be raised on direct

appeal from the criminal proceedings in order to preserve the claim

for postconviction relief purposes, and the claim shall not be decided

on direct appeal from the criminal proceedings.

We conclude that based on section 814.7, Peterson cannot raise his claims of 

ineffective assistance of counsel in this direct appeal. See State v. Treptow, 960 

N.W.2d 98, 106–07 (Iowa 2021). Such claims must be raised in postconvictionrelief proceedings. See Iowa Code § 814.7; State v. Watson, No. 20-1333, 2021 

WL 2452049, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. June 16, 2021). Therefore, we do not address 

Peterson’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

We affirm Peterson’s convictions.

AFFIRMED.