STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHRISTOPHER RYAN AUCH, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-837 / 08-1832
Filed November 25, 2009
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CHRISTOPHER RYAN AUCH,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Paul R. Huscher,
Judge.
Christopher Auch appeals his sentence for the convictions of willful injury
causing bodily injury and domestic abuse assault while using a dangerous
weapon. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sheryl A. Soich, Assistant Attorney
General, Bryan Tingle, County Attorney, and Tracie L. Sehnert and Brent
Hinders, Assistant County Attorneys, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Mansfield, JJ.
2
MANSFIELD, J.
Christopher Auch appeals from the sentence imposed following his
convictions for willful injury causing bodily injury and domestic abuse assault
while using a dangerous weapon. He argues his trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to object to victim impact statements submitted by the victim’s mother and
stepfather.
Auch and the State agree the statements should not have been
admitted into evidence.
The sole issue on appeal is whether Auch was
prejudiced by the admission of the statements. We find that because there is no
indication the district court relied on the statements and the statements provided
little additional information, Auch cannot show he was prejudiced.
Thus, we
affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
On April 16, 2008, after he had been drinking, Auch attacked his exgirlfriend with a knife.1 As a result of the attack, Auch’s victim was transported to
the emergency room where doctors discovered she had six knife wounds and
was hypotensive. Auch’s victim was given a blood transfusion, her wounds were
closed, and she was hospitalized for several days. Following a jury trial, Auch
was convicted of willful injury causing bodily injury in violation of Iowa Code
section 708.4(2) (2007) and domestic abuse assault with a dangerous weapon in
violation of section 708.2A(2)(c).2
1
Auch and his victim are the parents of a four-year-old child.
The State charged Auch with attempt to commit murder, willful injury resulting in
serious injury, domestic abuse assault with a dangerous weapon, false imprisonment,
and child endangerment. Following the presentation of evidence, the district court
granted Auch’s motion for a directed verdict on the child endangerment charge. The
remaining four counts were submitted to the jury. The jury found Auch not guilty of the
attempt to commit murder, but guilty of the lesser-included offense of assault with intent
2
3
On October 20, 2008, a sentencing hearing was held. The presentence
investigation report had recommended that Auch be sentenced to five years in
prison on the willful injury causing bodily injury count and two years in prison on
the domestic abuse assault with a dangerous weapon count. During the hearing,
the State also recommended imprisonment.
Auch, meanwhile, requested a
suspended prison sentence.
The district court noted that it had received a letter from Auch’s employer,
a copy of Auch’s high school equivalency diploma, a certificate of completion of a
substance abuse program, and victim impact statements from the victim’s mother
and stepfather, which were all placed with the presentence investigation report.
The statements from the victim’s mother and stepfather both recommended that
Auch be imprisoned for “the maximum time”; one of them also mentioned another
incident involving the defendant and another family member. Additionally, Auch
presented testimony from two witnesses—his employer and a counselor. Finally,
Auch exercised his right of allocution.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court sentenced Auch to five
years in prison on the willful injury causing bodily injury offense and two years in
prison on the domestic assault with a dangerous weapon offense, to be served
consecutively. The district court explained the sentence imposed, noting that “[i]t
appears to the court that these offenses were particularly violent” and, after
summarizing the defendant’s explanation for the offense in the presentence
to inflict serious injury; not guilty of willful injury causing serious injury, but guilty of the
lesser-included offense of willful injury causing bodily injury; guilty of domestic abuse
assault while using a dangerous weapon; and not guilty of false imprisonment. At
sentencing, the district court merged the offense of assault with intent to inflict serious
injury into the offense of willful injury causing bodily injury.
4
report, that “the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his actions in this
matter.” The district court did not refer to the victim impact statements from the
victim’s mother and stepfather.
Auch appeals and asserts his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by
failing to object to the victim impact statements submitted by the victim’s mother
and stepfather.
II. Ineffective-Assistance-of-Counsel Claim.
Our review of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim is de novo. State
v. Parker, 747 N.W.2d 196, 203 (Iowa 2008).
In order to prevail on an
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, a defendant must prove (1) trial counsel
failed to perform an essential duty and (2) prejudice resulted from that failure.
State v. Tesch, 704 N.W.2d 440, 450 (Iowa 2005). A defendant’s failure to prove
either prong defeats his claim. Id. When raised on direct appeal, we may either
find the record is adequate to decide the claim or may choose to preserve the
claim for possible postconviction relief proceedings. State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d
128, 133 (Iowa 2006); Tesch, 704 N.W.2d at 450. “Ordinarily, such claims are
preserved for a possible postconviction relief action unless it can be determined
as a matter of law on appeal that the defendant cannot prove either or both
elements of the claim.” Tesch, 704 N.W.2d at 450. Here we believe the claim
can be resolved on direct appeal.
Auch and the State agree that trial counsel failed to perform an essential
duty. Iowa Code chapter 915 authorizes the use of victim impact statements
during sentencing. State v. Matheson, 684 N.W.2d 243, 244 (Iowa 2004). A
victim may present a victim impact statement to the court through one or more
5
specified methods. Iowa Code § 915.21; see Iowa Code §§ 915.10(3) (defining
victim), 915.10(4) (defining victim impact statement). However, we agree with
the parties that under the facts of this case, the victim’s mother and stepfather
were not “victims” within the Code definitions.
Iowa Code § 915.10(3); see
Tesch, 704 N.W.2d at 451-52 (discussing who may make a victim impact
statement); State v. Sumpter, 438 N.W.2d 6, 8 (Iowa 1989) (same). This is not to
minimize the effects of Auch’s actions on the victim’s parents. We simply hold,
consistent with precedent and the language of the Iowa Code, that they were not
authorized by law to submit victim impact statements.
Ordinarily, we would preserve a defendant’s ineffective-assistance-ofcounsel claim in order for trial counsel to explain why a valid objection was not
made. Tesch, 704 N.W.2d at 453. However, we need not do so here because
we find Auch has failed as a matter of law to prove the prejudice prong of his
claim. See id. “To prevail on the prejudice prong of an ineffective-assistance
claim, the defendant must show there is a reasonable probability that, but for
counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been
different.” Id. (citations and quotations omitted). Auch claims he was prejudiced
because “[w]hile the victim impact statement does not provide additional factual
information about the crime itself, it certainly provides additional information of
the significant emotional impact of the offense.”
In the present case, the district court acknowledged at the outset of the
hearing that the mother’s and stepfather’s statements were part of the record,
along with other materials submitted by Auch. However, no objection was made
to the statements, so we do not presume the district court considered them.
6
Compare Tesch, 704 N.W.2d at 453-54 (discussing that the sentencing judge did
not rule on whether the statements were admissible and made no mention of the
victim’s wife’s wishes in pronouncing sentence), with Matheson, 684 N.W.2d at
244-45 (discussing that the district court must have determined the statements
were admissible when it overruled the defendant’s objection to them and
presumably considered them).
Later, when the district court pronounced
sentence, it did not refer to the statements. Instead, the court explained:
The court has considered the defendant’s request that the
sentences of imprisonment be suspended. It appears to this court
that these offenses were particularly violent. Suspended sentences
in this case would unduly minimize the seriousness of the offense.
The court further finds that they would not adequately protect
the public and particularly the victim of these offenses.
The court finds that the defendant has not accepted
responsibility for his actions in this matter. In his discussions with
the presentence report interviewer, Mr. Auch indicated he tried to
be intimate with the victim. She told him no. He went to the kitchen
and smoked a cigarette. And while in there, he happened to put a
knife in his back pocket, because he always puts things in his
pocket. And then went back to the couch and these assaults
occurred.
The court does not find that a suspended sentence is
appropriate in this case.
The court further believes that the sentences should be
served consecutively and not concurrently. These are offenses that
took place over an extended period of time, involving pursuit. Not
only the opportunity for a cooling off, but a renewed intent.
Thus, the court’s explanation indicates that it was influenced by the nature of the
offenses and by the defendant’s failure to accept responsibility, not by anything in
the statements. Furthermore, the sentences themselves were consistent with the
recommendation in the presentence report, except the district court decided to
impose the sentences consecutively, a subject on which the report had no made
no recommendation.
7
Additionally, even if one could conclude that the district court had
considered the statements, they provided little information that was not already
apparent. The victim’s mother’s statement included a brief allegation that Auch
had also threatened to stab the victim’s sister, but both statements generally
described a parent’s natural reaction to a daughter being deliberately injured.
The content of the statements did not prejudice the defendant.
Compare
Sumpter, 438 N.W.2d at 9 (finding no prejudice where the court concluded,
although the victim impact statements were hostile and bitter and expressed a
strong desire for the ultimate retribution, they told the sentencing judge little, if
anything, that was not already apparent), with Matheson, 684 N.W.2d at 244-45
(discussing that where the state introduced three victim impact statements from
victims of similar but separate crimes committed by the defendant in another
state, the “statements told the sentencing judge . . . a good deal more than would
otherwise be known”).3
We conclude Auch cannot demonstrate he was prejudiced by the
admission of the victim’s mother’s and stepfather’s statements.
There is no
indication the district court considered the statements, and the statements
contained little information that was not already apparent to the sentencing court.
Therefore, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3
Furthermore, Matheson was not an ineffective assistance case and thus, the
defendant did not have the burden of showing prejudice. Matheson, 684 N.W.2d at 244
(holding the error was not harmless).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
