TRAVIS WOLFKILL, Applicant-Appellant, vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-708 / 07-0174
Filed October 12, 2007
TRAVIS WOLFKILL,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Glenn E. Pille, Judge.
Travis Wolfkill appeals the trial court’s ruling denying his application for
postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
Jeffrey Mains of Mains Law Office, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney
General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Joseph P. Weeg, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vogel and Baker, JJ.
2
HUITINK, P.J.
Travis Wolfkill appeals from the trial court’s ruling denying his application
for postconviction relief. Wolfkill claims he was denied effective assistance of
trial counsel in at least nine particulars. We review Wolfkill’s claims de novo.
State v. Kress, 636 N.W.2d 12, 19 (Iowa 2001).
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
To prevail on ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the applicant has
the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that “(1) counsel failed
to perform an essential duty, and (2) prejudice resulted.” Meier v. State, 337
N.W.2d 204, 207 (Iowa 1983). With regard to the first prong, “the [applicant]
must overcome the presumption that counsel was competent and show that
counsel’s performance was not within the range of normal competency.” State v.
Buck, 510 N.W.2d 850, 853 (Iowa 1994). With regard to the second prong, the
applicant must show that “a reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel’s
unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
Wemark v. State, 602 N.W.2d 810, 815 (Iowa 1999). “A reasonable probability is
a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2068, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 698
(1984).
We may dispose of ineffective assistance of counsel claims if an
applicant fails to meet either of these prongs. State v. Cook, 565 N.W.2d 611,
614 (Iowa 1997).
Even if we assume without deciding Wolfkill has not waived error by failing
to comply with our rules of appellate procedure and counsel breached an
essential duty in any particular claimed, we are nevertheless required to affirm
3
because Wolfkill has failed to prove the prejudice element of his ineffective
assistance of counsel claims. “[A] verdict or conclusion only weakly supported by
the record is more likely to have been affected by errors than one with
overwhelming record support.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696, 104 S. Ct. at 2069,
80 L. Ed. 2d at 698.
On Wolfkill’s direct appeal, we found the evidence supporting Wolfkill’s
conviction was “overwhelming.” See State v. Milligan, No. 03-0475 (Iowa Ct.
App. Aug. 11, 2004). 1 The record includes evidence of the following: Sometime
on the night of March 1, 2002, Shirley Wilson was stabbed to death in her home
in Des Moines, which she shared with her grandson, Wolfkill. At trial, Chris
McAdam testified Wolfkill had told him earlier on the day of Wilson’s death, “I
hate my grandma. I wish she was dead.” In addition, Jeremy Chirch testified
Wolfkill had told him earlier on the evening of Wilson’s death that he was going to
kill a family member. Wolfkill admitted to being in the house at about the time
Wilson was killed. Wilson’s DNA was found on Wolfkill’s leg. The crime scene
indicated Wilson had struggled with her killer; and a day after the murder,
Wolfkill’s body displayed marks consistent with having been in a fight. Finally,
Wolfkill’s shirt, which had Wilson’s DNA on it, was found in Wolfkill’s bedroom.
We reach the same conclusion here as we did on direct appeal.
We accordingly affirm the district court’s decision denying Wolfkill’s
application for postconviction relief.
AFFIRMED.
1
Wolfkill is also known as Milligan.
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.
