STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHESTER LEE BAILEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-320 / 06-0837
Filed June 27, 2007
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CHESTER LEE BAILEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, James C.
Bauch, Judge.
Chester Lee Bailey appeals from his conviction of third-degree burglary.
AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Patricia Reynolds, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Christen Douglass, Assistant Attorney
General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Jim Katcher, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Baker, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
Chester Lee Bailey appeals from his conviction of third-degree burglary for
his role in the theft of Lester Howard’s tools and antique engines.
Bailey
admitted that he helped Tony Howard remove the items from Lester Howard’s
property, but claimed he was unaware Tony Howard did not have permission to
do so. The fighting issue at trial was whether Bailey knew the items were being
stolen. On appeal, he contends his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to
object to the testimony of law enforcement officers. He contends the testimony
improperly commented on the credibility of statements Bailey made to a sheriff’s
deputy. He also claims counsel should not have elicited testimony from Lester
Howard which expressed the opinion Bailey knew the articles did not belong to
Tony Howard.
He also claims counsel should have moved to strike Deputy
Nichols’s opinion that he believed Bailey knew the items were stolen.
We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. State v.
McBride, 625 N.W.2d 372, 373 (Iowa Ct. App. 2001). 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 1999). The defendant has the burden of proving both
elements of his ineffective assistance claim by a preponderance of the evidence.
Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134, 145 (Iowa 2001). We may dispose of the
defendant’s ineffective assistance claims if he fails to prove either prong. Id.
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). Only in rare
3
cases will the trial record alone be sufficient to resolve the claim. Id. “Even a
lawyer is entitled to his day in court, especially when his professional reputation
is impugned.” State v. Kirchner, 600 N.W.2d 330, 335 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999)
(citing State v. Coil, 264 N.W.2d 293, 296 (Iowa 1978)). Because the record is
not fully developed, we preserve for postconviction relief the question of whether
counsel was ineffective.
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.
