STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JEFFREY ALAN SOBOROFF, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-365 / 06-1419
Filed June 27, 2007
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JEFFREY ALAN SOBOROFF,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mary E. Howes,
Judge.
Jeffrey Soboroff appeals his conviction, following jury trial, for operating
while intoxicated. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and David Arthur Adams,
Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney
General, William E. Davis, County Attorney, and Liz Cervantes, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Miller, JJ.
2
MILLER, J.
Jeffrey Soboroff appeals his conviction, following jury trial, for operating
while intoxicated, in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2(1) (2005). He claims
he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. We affirm his conviction and
preserve
his
ineffective
assistance
of
counsel
claims
for
a
possible
postconviction proceeding.
Soboroff contends his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to timely file a
motion to suppress and to secure a ruling on the untimely motion to suppress
that he did file. He claims he was prejudiced by the admission of the evidence
which should have been suppressed had counsel properly performed his
essential duties. Generally, we do not resolve claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel on direct appeal. State v. Biddle, 652 N.W.2d 191, 203 (Iowa 2002)
(citing State v. Kinkead, 570 N.W.2d 97, 103 (Iowa 1997)). We prefer to leave
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims for postconviction relief proceedings.
State v. Lopez, 633 N.W.2d 774, 784 (Iowa 2001); State v. Ceron, 573 N.W.2d
587, 590 (Iowa 1997).
“[W]e preserve such claims for postconviction relief
proceedings, where an adequate record of the claim can be developed and the
attorney charged with providing ineffective assistance may have an opportunity
to respond to defendant's claims.” Biddle, 652 N.W.2d at 203.
The State urges the record is not adequate to deal with Soboroff’s claims
of ineffective assistance on direct appeal and suggests they should be preserved
for a possible postconviction proceeding. We agree. No record has yet been
made before the trial court on these issues, trial counsel has not been given an
3
opportunity to explain his actions, and the trial court has not ruled on these
claims. Under these circumstances, we pass these issues in this direct appeal
and preserve them for a possible postconviction proceeding. See State v. Bass,
385 N.W.2d 243, 245 (Iowa 1986).
Accordingly, we affirm Soboroff’s conviction and preserve the specified
claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for a possible postconviction relief
proceeding.
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.
