STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. KERRY DAVID INMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-609 / 06-1901
Filed October 12, 2007
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
KERRY DAVID INMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, William C. Ostlund,
Judge.
Kerry David Inman appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana with
intent to deliver. AFFIRMED.
Steven K. Nalean, Nalean & Nalean, Boone, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bridget Chambers, Assistant Attorney
General, Jim Robbins, County Attorney, and Steven A. Owen, Special
Prosecutor, for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
MILLER, J.
Kerry David Inman appeals his conviction, following jury trial, for
possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, in violation of Iowa Code section
124.401(1)(d) (2005). He claims he was denied effective assistance of counsel.
We affirm his conviction and preserve his ineffective assistance claims for a
possible postconviction proceeding.
Inman contends his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to
several instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct by the State during its
closing argument.
More specifically, he contends the prosecutor acted
improperly in (1) referring to the existence of a local drug trade and making a
public safety argument to the jury regarding it, (2) vouching for the veracity of the
arresting officer, who was a State’s witness, (3) expressing a personal belief
regarding Inman’s guilt, and (4) emphasizing and commenting regarding
evidence that disappeared from the courtroom during a trial recess and inflaming
the jury against Inman. Inman argues that but for trial counsel’s failure to object
to these instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct the result of the
proceeding would have been different.
We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. State v.
Martin, 704 N.W.2d 665, 668 (Iowa 2005). To prove trial counsel was ineffective
the defendant must show that counsel breached an essential duty and that
prejudice resulted from counsel's error. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,
687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 693 (1984); State v. Griffin, 691
N.W.2d 734, 736-37 (Iowa 2005).
3
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.
We conclude the record before us is inadequate to address one or more of
Inman’s claims of ineffective assistance on direct appeal.
Under these
circumstances, we pass on these issues of ineffective assistance 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 the conviction
and preserve Inman’s specified claims of ineffective assistance of counsel as set
forth above for a possible postconviction 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.
