JEFFREY ALLAN ROADEN, Applicant-Appellant, vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 3-714 / 12-1659 Filed September 5, 2013 JEFFREY ALLAN ROADEN, Applicant-Appellant, vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Arthur E. Gamble, Judge. Jeffrey Roaden appeals from the dismissal of his application for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED. Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Dennis D. Hendrickson, Assistant Appellate Defender, Des Moines, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Susan Cox, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State. Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ. 2 POTTERFIELD, P.J. In June 2008, Jeffrey Roaden pleaded guilty to three counts of intimidation with a dangerous weapon, third-degree burglary, and fourth-degree theft, pursuant to a plea agreement. At the plea proceeding when Roaden was represented by privately-retained counsel, the trial court failed to inform him of his right to counsel. See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.8(2)(b). Roaden did not appeal his convictions. In May 2011, Roaden filed an application for postconviction relief, which was denied after a hearing. On appeal, Roaden argues the district court erred in denying his application for postconviction relief. He notes that in State v. Myers, 653 N.W.2d 574, 578 (Iowa 2002), our supreme court concluded the first prong of an ineffectiveness claim breach of duty is satisfied by defense counsel s failure to raise a deficiency in the plea colloquy. Roaden acknowledges he must also demonstrate prejudice to support his ineffectiveness claim. See Myers, 653 N.W.2d at 577. He impliedly concedes he cannot prove prejudice, but asks that we re-visit the prejudice requirement. Such a request must be addressed to our supreme court. See State v. Eichler, 83 N.W.2d 576, 578 (Iowa 1957) ( If our previous holdings are to be overruled, we should ordinarily prefer to do it ourselves. ). We therefore affirm. AFFIRMED.
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.
