Opinion ID: 2066834
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scope of Review/Error Preservation.

Text: Neuzil claims on appeal that the jury should have been instructed on the issue of specific criminal intent and that trial counsel's failure to pursue such an instruction amounted to ineffective assistance. Although we prefer to address ineffectiveness of counsel claims in postconviction proceedings where counsel has an opportunity to respond, we may resolve them on direct appeal if, as here, the record is clear and plausible strategy and tactical considerations do not explain counsel's actions. State v. Hopkins, 576 N.W.2d 374, 378 (Iowa 1998). Because defendant alleges denial of a constitutional right, our review is de novo. Id. at 377. Counsel's failure to make an adequate record is a recognized exception to our customary error preservation rules. Earnest v. State, 508 N.W.2d 630, 632 (Iowa 1993). To prevail on his claim, Neuzil must show his counsel failed to perform an essential duty and prejudice resulted. State v. McPhillips, 580 N.W.2d 748, 754 (Iowa 1998). We address the merits of the issue counsel allegedly failed to raise, mindful that an ineffectiveness claim cannot be sustained on failure to urge an issue having no merit. Id.