IN THE INTEREST OF T.R., Minor Child, T.R., Minor Child, Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-661 / 07-1777
Filed October 15, 2008
IN THE INTEREST OF T.R.,
Minor Child,
T.R., Minor Child,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John G. Mullen,
District Associate Judge.
A minor appeals from the dispositional order finding her delinquent.
AFFIRMED.
Jack E. Dusthimer, Davenport, for appellant minor child.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney
General, Michael J. Walton, County Attorney, and Gerda Lane, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee State.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vogel and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
VOGEL, J.
T.R. was involved in two separate physical altercations in July 2007 and
August 2007 and was adjudged delinquent.1
T.R. appeals following her
adjudication of delinquency and subsequent dispositional order.
T.R. raises several vague ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
In
order to establish ineffective assistance, a party must show counsel’s
performance was deficient and actual prejudice resulted.
In re J.P.B., 419
N.W.2d 387, 392 (Iowa 1988). However, T.R.’s claims generally assert that her
counsel was not adequate but she fails to identify how these alleged deficiencies
worked to her prejudice such that they changed the outcome of the proceedings.
See Dunbar v. State, 515 N.W.2d 12, 15 (Iowa 1994) (requiring a defendant to
state the specific ways in which counsel’s performance was inadequate and
identify how competent representation would have changed the outcome).
Additionally, we note that T.R. does not challenge the delinquency adjudication
stemming from the July 2007 altercation and does not challenge the sufficiency
of the evidence regarding the delinquency adjudication stemming from either the
July 2007 or August 2007 altercations. Thus, while we could order a limited
remand for the juvenile court to consider T.R.’s claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel, we conclude that T.R.’s arguments are insufficient to establish a breach
of duty with resulting prejudice. Iowa R. App. P. 6.12(7) (providing for a limited
remand); see In re J.D.F., 553 N.W.2d 585, 587 (Iowa 1996) (stating that juvenile
1
The district court found that in July 2007, T.R. had committed two counts of assault
with a dangerous weapon in violation of Iowa Code section 708.2(3) (2007), and in
August 2007, T.R. had committed assault with a dangerous weapon in violation of Iowa
Code section 708.2(3) and going armed with intent in violation of Iowa Code section
708.8.
3
proceedings are reviewed de novo); cf. Dunbar, 515 N.W.2d at 15 (refusing to
preserve claims of a general nature stemming from a criminal conviction for
postconviction relief).
T.R. also contends that the district court erred in not granting a
continuance at either the adjudication hearing or disposition hearing. We review
a motion for a continuance under an abuse of discretion standard and will only
reverse if injustice will result to the party desiring the continuance. In re C.W.,
554 N.W.2d 279, 281 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996). T.R. requested a continuance at the
adjudication hearing. However, when the district court questioned the necessity
of a continuance, counsel could not specify what benefit T.R. would gain. Again,
T.R. requested a continuance at the dispositional hearing based upon her
intention to appeal the delinquency adjudication stemming from the August 2007
altercation. However, as T.R. was not planning on appealing the delinquency
adjudication stemming from the July 2007 altercation, the district court denied her
request.
We find no abuse of discretion in denying T.R.’s requests for a
continuance. Thus, we affirm pursuant to Iowa Court Rules 21.29(1)(a), (c), and
(e).
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.
