Court Opinion

ID: 9676271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:19:46.578726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:46.738343
License: Public Domain

LAVORATO, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I join Justice Wiggins’ dissent. I would also point out that this case underscores another reason, in addition to the reasons I stated in my dissent in State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128, 138-45 (Iowa 2006) (Lavo-rato, C.J., dissenting), why we should presume prejudice, vacate the judgment of sentence and conviction, and remand to allow the defendant to plead anew. Under the majority’s approach, a postconviction *242relief proceeding in cases like this one will now likely degenerate into a credibility contest between the lawyer and his or her former client, a contest the former client will' in all likelihood lose. We should not put lawyers and defendants in this unenviable 'position. Such unseemly conflict would be unnecessary, and district court performance would be improved, if we simply enforced Iowa Rule of Criminal Proce-duie 2.8(2)(b)’s requirements.
WIGGINS, J., joins this dissent.