IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 4

- 21 / 13

- 0165 Filed February 19, 2014
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs. KORVETTA SHERRON GLASPER , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, James D. Coil , District Associate Judge.

Defendant appeals from her convictions for assault with intent to inflict serious inju ry and domestic abuse assault. AFFIRMED.

Mark C. Smith , State Appellate Defender, and Stephan J. Japuntich , Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kyle Hanson , Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Ferguson , County Attorney, and Charity Sullivan , Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Mullins, JJ.2

DANILSON, C.J. Korvetta Glasper appeals her convictions for assault with intent to inflict serious injury, in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.1 and 708.2(3) (2011), and domestic abuse assault, in violation of Iowa Code section 708.2A(2)(b). On appeal, she maintains she received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial on two grounds

. S he first claims c ounsel gave her erroneous advice regarding a possible self

- defense instruction. Secondly, Glasper claims counsel violated ethical duties by sharing information with the court in breach of the attorney

- client privilege. Because we find the record is inadequate to determine if counsel was ineffective, we preserve the issue for postconviction relief and affirm the convictions. We generally preserve ineffective

- assistance

- of

- counsel claims for postconviction relief procee dings. State v. Utter , 803 N.W.2d 647, 651 (Iowa 2011). 1 “Only in rare cases will the trial record alone be sufficient to resolve the claim on direct appeal.” State v. Ta te , 710 N.W.2d 237, 240 (Iowa 2006)

. We prefer to reserve such claims for developm ent of the record and to allow trial counsel to defend against the charge. Id. If the record is inadequate to address the claim on direct appeal, we must preserve the claim for a postconviction

- relief proceeding, regardless of the potential viability of the claim. State v. Johnson , 784 N.W.2d 192, 198 (Iowa 2010).

1 See also Iowa Code § 814.7(3) ( “If an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is raised on direct appeal from the criminal proceedings, the court may decide the record is adequate to decide the claim or may choose to preserve the claim for determination under chapter 822.” ).3
Here the record is inadequat e to address Glasper’s claims because we do not know what advice trial counsel gave her regarding the possible self

- defense instruction or what reason counsel had f or sharing allegedly privileged information with the district court. See State v. Clay , 824 N.W.2d 488, 502 (Iowa 2012) (noting that a court considering an ineffective assistance of counsel claim may rely on ethical rules for lawyers to measure counsel’s performance); see also Iowa R. Prof’l Conduct 32:1.6(a) ( “ A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b) or required by paragraph (c). ” )

. The issue of whether trial counsel was ineffective is p reserved for possible future postconviction

- relief proceedings. 2 See Johnson , 784 N.W.2d at 198 (holdi ng if a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be addressed on appeal because of an inadequate record, the court must preserve it for postconviction

- relief proceedings even if it is raised in a general or conclusory manner). Because this was th e only issue on appeal, Glasper’s conviction s are otherwise affirmed without opinion. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.1203(a), (d).
AFFIRMED.

2 The issue of whether defense counsel was ineffective was raised by Gl asper ’ s motion in arrest judgment. Although a hearing was held on the motion, no testimonial evidence appears to have been received. Accordingly, the issue should be preserved so that counsel may be permitte d to testify to explain counsel’ s actions.