STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-686 / 06-1409
Filed November 15, 2007
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL MARTIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Thomas W. Mott,
Judge.
Christopher Michael Martin appeals from his conviction for third-degree
burglary and second-degree theft alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Martha J. Lucey, Assistant
State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Robert P. Ewald, Assistant Attorney
General, Steve Johnson, County Attorney, and Scott W. Nicholson, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
Christopher Michael Martin (Martin) appeals his conviction and sentence,
following a jury trial, for third-degree burglary and second-degree theft. Martin
alleges ineffective assistance of counsel.
In May 2006, a garage in Newton, Iowa was broken into and a Kawasaki
“four-wheeler” was stolen. The State’s theory was Martin broke into the garage
with the intent to steal the four-wheeler and recruited friends to help him move it
to Des Moines property belonging to Martin’s relatives. At trial, the friends and
Martin all testified and there were some inconsistencies in the testimony. Martin
testified and denied involvement in breaking into the garage to steal the fourwheeler.
Martin claims his trial counsel was ineffective in two ways: (1) for failing to
object to the aiding and abetting instruction utilized by the court; and (2) for failing
to request the court instruct the jury on his defense of compulsion.
When there is an alleged denial of constitutional rights, such as an
allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel, we evaluate the totality of the
circumstances in a de novo review. Osborn v. State, 573 N.W.2d 917, 920 (Iowa
1998). To prove trial counsel was ineffective Martin must show that counsel
failed to perform an essential duty and that prejudice resulted from counsel's
error. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064,
80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 693 (1984); Wemark v. State, 602 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa
1999). A reviewing court may look to either prong to dispose of an ineffective
assistance claim. Taylor v. State, 352 N.W.2d 683, 685 (Iowa 1984).
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). We prefer to
leave
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
claims
for
postconviction
relief
proceedings. State v. Lopez, 633 N.W.2d 774, 784 (Iowa 2001). “[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 analysis of ineffective assistance on grounds of failure to object to jury
instructions must be assessed in light of the theory of defense employed by the
trial attorney. State v. Blackford, 335 N.W.2d 173, 178 (Iowa 1983). Additionally,
“[i]mprovident trial strategy, miscalculated tactics, mistake, carelessness or
inexperience do not necessarily amount to ineffective counsel.” State v. Aldape,
307 N.W. 2d 32, 42 (Iowa 1981).
A defendant is not entitled to perfect
representation, but rather only that which is within the range of normal
competency. State v. Artzer, 609 N.W.2d 526, 531 (Iowa 2000).
As set forth above, Martin can succeed on his ineffectiveness claim only
by establishing both that his counsel failed to perform an essential duty and that
prejudice resulted. See Wemark, 602 N.W.2d at 814. The trial attorney has had
no opportunity to explain either trial strategy or a theory of defense which could
render the lack of an objection to the aiding and abetting instruction appropriate.
Likewise, the record does not disclose whether the trial attorney had an
appropriate strategy, theory of defense, or other reason to support the action of
4
not seeking an instruction on the defense of compulsion. This is not the “rare
case” which allows us to decide ineffective assistance on direct appeal without
an evidentiary hearing. See State v. Straw, 709, N.W.2d 128, 138 (Iowa 2006).
We preserve Martin’s claims of ineffective assistance of 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.
