Opinion ID: 1938491
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant claims he was denied effective assistance of counsel prior to this appeal.

Text: One week prior to trial, at defendant's request, his first court-appointed attorney was replaced by a second appointed attorney. A third counsel now represents him on appeal. Following trial, defendant was acquitted of the robbery charge and found guilty on the kidnapping and sexual abuse charges. Defendant, in his appeal brief, for the first time cites numerous omissions of trial and pretrial counsel, which allegedly constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. These include alleged failure to preserve error on the issue discussed in division II. The sixth amendment, United States Constitution, right to counsel, means the right to the effective assistance of an attorney. Cleesen v. State, 258 N.W.2d 330, 332 (Iowa 1977). The right to the effective assistance of counsel is extended to indigent defendants as well as to persons able to afford private counsel. State v. Kellogg, 263 N.W.2d 539, 543-44 (Iowa 1978). In evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, our standard for judging the quality of representation accorded a criminal defendant, who challenges the competency of his attorney, is `(whether in all the circumstances counsel's performance was within the range of normal competency.' Defendant has the burden of proving ineffectiveness of counsel. State v. Veverka, 271 N.W.2d 744, 750 (Iowa 1978) (citations omitted). This type of ineffective assistance issue ordinarily requires an evidentiary, adversary hearing. State v. Smith, 282 N.W.2d 138, 143 (Iowa 1979). The question of defendant's previous counsel's competency is more properly presented on an application for postconviction relief. Id. at 143-44; State v. O'Connell, 275 N.W.2d 197, 205-06 (Iowa 1979). This is appropriate here where defendant makes numerous complaints concerning the handling of his case. Such a hearing would allow opportunity to more fully develop the record to show all the circumstances including any not in the present record, concerning strategy and reasons involved in counsel's performance. State v. Williams, 285 N.W.2d 248, 271 (Iowa 1979). We affirm the judgments but without adjudicating the issue of defense counsel's competency. Defendant's right to raise that question by postconviction proceedings is reserved except for the issue considered in division II. We intimate no conclusion as to any other allegation now made by defendant relative to his previous counsel. AFFIRMED.