SHAWN CURTIS GOODWIN , Applicant - Appellant, vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent - Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-781 / 08-0173
Filed October 15, 2008
SHAWN CURTIS GOODWIN,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Timothy
O’Grady, Judge.
Shawn Goodwin appeals from the trial court’s ruling dismissing his
application for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
Marti Nerenstone, Council Bluffs, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sharon Hall, Assistant Attorney
General, Matthew Wilber, County Attorney, and Margaret Popp Reyes, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vogel and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
PER CURIAM
Shawn Goodwin appeals from the trial court’s ruling dismissing his
application for postconviction relief challenging the revocation of his probation
and resulting incarceration. Goodwin contends the sentencing judge abused his
discretion by imposing a special condition of probation requiring Goodwin to
participate in a sexual offender treatment program (SOTP) and subsequently
abused his discretion by revoking Goodwin’s probation for failure to successfully
complete SOTP. Goodwin additionally claims he was denied effective assistance
of counsel, citing counsel’s failure to object to the challenged condition of his
probation.
Our review of the record indicates Goodwin agreed to SOTP as a special
condition of probation as part of an earlier agreement with the State to continue
rather than revoke his probation.
The record also indicates Goodwin
subsequently expressly requested revocation of his probation to obtain sex
offender treatment while incarcerated. The State correctly argues that Goodwin
may not allege error on an issue to which he acquiesced or invited. See State v.
Sage, 162 N.W.2d 502, 504 (Iowa 1968). The record also indicates Goodwin’s
ineffective assistance of counsel claims were not resolved or otherwise
addressed by the postconviction trial court. Goodwin has also failed to preserve
this issue for our review because he did not file the requisite posttrial motion
requesting the postconviction trial court to address this issue. See Meier v.
Sennecout, 641 N.W.2d 532, 539 (Iowa 2002).
3
The order of the postconviction trial court revoking Goodwin’s probation
and imposing the sentence of incarceration originally ordered in this case is
affirmed.
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.
