Court Opinion

ID: 9717396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:02:52.973595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:53.030200
License: Public Domain

DONIELSON, Judge
(dissenting).
I agree with Judge Oxberger’s dissent insofar as he concludes that defendant was not prejudiced by the admission of the Thomas deposition at trial. I write separately to express my views more fully.
The question of prejudice arises as the second part of the two-step analysis in determining whether a person has been denied effective assistance of counsel. See Snethen v. State, 308 N.W.2d 11, 14 (Iowa 1981). I am not even convinced that the first part of that test has been satisfied; i.e. defendant must show that his attorney failed to perform an essential duty. Id. It appears to me that defendant acquiesced in the use of the deposition by not objecting to its use at trial.
Even if defendant’s attorney failed to “perform an essential duty” in not ensuring defendant’s presence at the taking of Thomas’ deposition, I am satisfied that defendant was not prejudiced thereby. Thomas did not and could not implicate defendant in the robbery — he could not see defendant waiting in the car and therefore *562was unable to identify him when he was brought back to the store after his arrest. Defendant does not explain what he could have done had he been at Thomas’ deposition other than a general claim of being able to assist his attorney in cross-examining Thomas. This, however, would have accomplished nothing since, as already indicated, Thomas was unable to identify defendant as one who was involved. In fact, the deposition proved beneficial to defendant since it contained no direct evidence of his involvement and in fact corroborated defendant’s own testimony in many important respects; for example, the car did not leave the store after the robbery at a high rate of speed or under any other suspicious circumstances.
The only thing accomplished by the use of the deposition was to prove that a robbery occurred. No one, however, disputes the fact of the robbery’s occurrence; the only question is whether defendant was involved. Since the deposition contained absolutely no evidence on that question, I cannot agree that defendant was prejudiced by any alleged failure on the part of his trial attorney. I would therefore conclude that defendant failed to sustain his burden of proving ineffective assistance of counsel and deny his application for post-conviction relief.