STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANTHONY DARNELL ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-1056 / 06-0050
Filed January 31, 2007
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ANTHONY DARNELL ROBINSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Gary D. McKenrick,
Judge.
Anthony Robinson appeals from his convictions of first-degree robbery
and willful injury resulting in bodily injury. AFFIRMED.
Patricia Reynolds, Acting State Appellate Defender, and Dennis D.
Hendrickson, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant
Attorney General, William E. Davis, County Attorney, and Robert Cusack,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
Anthony Robinson appeals from his convictions of first-degree robbery
and willful injury resulting in bodily injury. He contends the trial court erred in
denying his motion in arrest of judgment because “the whole record denies
serious injury” and “the whole record . . . denies the involvement of a dangerous
weapon.”
In the alternative, he contends his trial counsel was ineffective in
failing in his motion in arrest of judgment to challenge the evidence of serious
injury or use of a dangerous weapon necessary to sustain his robbery conviction.
We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. State v. McBride,
625 N.W.2d 372, 373 (Iowa Ct. App. 2001).
Appellant posits two claims on appeal:
I.
II.
Did the Trial Court Err in Denying a Motion in Arrest of
Judgment as to Count I of the Trial Information, Robbery
in the First Degree? (and)
Counsel may have been ineffective for failing to preserve
the issue raised in Division I.
Defendant’s motion in arrest of judgment only claimed the evidence did
not support the theft element of robbery. It made no claim concerning serious
injury or lack of a dangerous weapon. Error was not preserved on the issue now
argued on appeal. 1 State v. Moorhead, 308 N.W.2d 60, 64 (Iowa 1981) (“Matters
not raised before the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”)
Because error was not preserved on issue one, we turn to the ineffective
assistance of counsel claim. To establish an ineffective assistance of counsel
claim a defendant must show (1) counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and
(2) prejudice resulted therefrom. Wemark v. State, 602 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa
1
A motion is arrest of judgment is not the correct method to challenge the sufficiency of
the evidence. State v. Dallen, 452 N.W.2d 398, 399 (Iowa 1990).
3
1999). Ordinarily, we preserve ineffectiveness claims raised on direct appeal for
postconviction relief to allow full development of the facts surrounding counsel’s
conduct. Berryhill v. State, 603 N.W.2d 243, 245 (Iowa 1999). However, the
record here is clear that counsel did not fail to perform an essential duty and we
can accordingly affirm on direct appeal.
Following a jury trial, Robinson was found guilty of first-degree robbery
and willful injury resulting in serious injury.
The district court then granted
Robinson’s motion in arrest of judgment concerning the willful injury conviction;
the court concluded the evidence was insufficient to find the victim suffered a
serious injury and, accordingly, entered judgment against Robinson for willful
injury resulting in bodily injury. Robinson argues his trial counsel was ineffective
in failing to argue in the motion in arrest of judgment that the element of his
robbery conviction requiring proof that he purposely inflicted or attempted to
inflict serious injury on the victim was not met.
Disregarding the issue of whether a challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence can be properly raised in a motion in arrest of judgment, we conclude
counsel was not ineffective in failing to challenge the evidence supporting his
robbery conviction because the argument is meritless. See State v. Greene, 592
N.W.2d 24, 29 (Iowa 1999) (“Counsel is not incompetent in failing to pursue a
meritless issue.”). The jury was instructed that it could find Robinson guilty of
first-degree robbery if it was proven that he purposely inflicted or attempted to
inflict a serious injury on the victim, or was armed with a dangerous weapon.
The evidence shows Robinson punched the victim, stepped on him, rammed him
into a vehicle, and stabbed him in the abdomen. A witness called the police
4
because she thought the victim was “about to die.” Although the district court
concluded the injuries sustained by the victim were not serious, there is ample
evidence that Robinson attempted to inflict a serious injury on the victim.
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.
