Opinion ID: 2100441
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether Defendant's Trial Counsel Provided Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.

Text: A. Arguments. Defendant argues his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to object to jury Instructions 2, 4, and 5 as prejudicial misstatements of the law. Defendant maintains Instructions 2, 4, and 5 are improper because they instruct the jury to determine his guilt or innocence. Defendant contends the term innocence versus the term guilty beyond a reasonable doubt places an unconstitutional burden on him to prove his innocence rather than requiring the State to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The State argues defendant's trial counsel was not ineffective because he had no duty to pursue any meritless claims. The State maintains Instructions 2, 4, and 5 were properly clarified by other instructions provided to the jury; specifically, Instructions 6 and 8, which explained the State had the burden to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and defined reasonable doubt. B. Analysis. Instruction 2 provides in pertinent part: You must determine the defendant's guilt or innocence from the evidence and the law in these instructions. Instruction 4 provides in pertinent part: If you find a defendant innocent or guilty on any one of the counts, you may not conclude guilt or innocence on the others. Finally, Instruction 5 provides in pertinent part: The guilt or innocence of each defendant must be determined solely upon individual participation in the crime. In order to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, it must be shown that the trial counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and his or her omission resulted in prejudice. State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860, 869 (Iowa 2003). Jury instructions are not considered separately; they should be considered as a whole. State v. Langlet, 283 N.W.2d 330, 337 (Iowa 1979). In Langlet the defendant complained about the use of the word innocence in his jury instructions. Id. We determined that the other jury instructions which provided that the burden of proof was on the State and that the defendant had the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt were adequate clarifications of the challenged instructions. Id. Similar considerations exist in the present case. Instructions 6 and 8 clarify any issues involving the word innocence in Instructions 2, 4, and 5. Instruction 6 explains that the State has the burden to show the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Instruction 8 again provides that the burden is on the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and also defines reasonable doubt for the jury. Because Instructions 2, 4, and 5 were clarified by Instructions 6 and 8 and therefore were not prejudicial to the defendant, trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the instructions. See State v. Hochmuth, 585 N.W.2d 234, 238 (Iowa 1998) (holding trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless issue). We have considered all issues presented and conclude that defendant's conviction should be affirmed. Because the sentencing enhancement contained in Iowa Code section 124.401C should not have been applied, we vacate defendant's sentence and remand the case to the district court for resentencing. JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AFFIRMED, SENTENCE VACATED, AND CASE REMANDED.