STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CALVIN FLOYD ARMSTRONG, SR., Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-834 / 06-1715
Filed November 29, 2007
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CALVIN FLOYD ARMSTRONG, SR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Kossuth County, Joseph J. Straub,
Judge.
Calvin Armstrong Sr. appeals his conviction, judgment, and sentence for
sexual abuse in the third degree. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa R. Wilson,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Mary E. Tabor, Assistant Attorney
General, and Todd Holmes, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
HUITINK, P.J.
Calvin Armstrong Sr. appeals his conviction, judgment, and sentence for
sexual abuse in the third degree in violation of Iowa Code section 709.4(2)(b)
(2005). Armstrong contends he is entitled to a new trial because he was denied
effective assistance of trial counsel.
I. Standard of Review
We review ineffective assistance of counsel claims de novo.
State v.
Bergmann, 600 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 1999).
II. Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel
Armstrong argues he has been denied effective assistance of trial counsel
because counsel (1) mishandled an Iowa Department of Human Services report
and failed to object to its admission, (2) failed to object to expert testimony
commenting on the credibility of the complaining witness, and (3) failed to object
to bad acts evidence. Ordinarily, we preserve ineffective assistance of counsel
claims for postconviction proceedings to enable full development of the record
and to afford trial counsel an opportunity to respond. Berryhill v. State, 603
N.W.2d 243, 245 (Iowa 1999). “Even a lawyer is entitled to his day in court,
especially when his professional reputation is impugned.”
N.W.2d 293, 296 (Iowa 1978).
State v. Coil, 264
Because we find the record is insufficient to
address Armstrong’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal,
we preserve his claims for possible postconviction relief proceedings.
Because Armstrong raises no other issues necessitating reversal of his
conviction and sentence, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
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.
