DANIEL KING, Applicant-Appellant, vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-147 / 08-0430
Filed May 6, 2009
DANIEL KING,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Nancy A.
Baumgartner, Judge.
Daniel King appeals an action denying him postconviction relief.
AFFIRMED.
Wallace Taylor, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bridget Chambers, Assistant Attorney
General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Todd D. Tripp, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee State.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
VOGEL, P.J.
Daniel King appeals from the district court’s order denying him
postconviction relief following his conviction for sexual abuse in the third degree
under Iowa Code section 709.4 (2005).1
He claims that trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to (1) adequately investigate and challenge the DNA
evidence; (2) present additional witnesses at trial; and (3) present evidence of
the victim’s alleged motives to falsely accuse King.
We review ineffective-
assistance-of-counsel claims de novo. State v. Bearse, 748 N.W.2d 211, 214
(Iowa 2008).
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a claimant must
demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that “(1) his trial counsel failed
to perform an essential duty, and (2) this failure resulted in prejudice.” State v.
Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128, 133 (Iowa 2006) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2065, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 693 (1984)). We may
affirm the district court’s rejection of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim if
either element is lacking. State v. Greene, 592 N.W.2d 24, 29 (Iowa 1999).
The district court found that King did not establish by a preponderance of
the evidence that his trial counsel failed to perform an essential duty which
caused him prejudice. First, trial counsel acknowledged he lacked expertise in
the area of DNA, and therefore hired and relied on a well-qualified expert. While
1
King was convicted under Iowa Code section 709.4(2)(c)(4) (a person who is four or
more years older performs a sex act with another person who is fourteen or fifteen years
of age) and sentenced to an indeterminate term not to exceed twenty-five years,
pursuant to Iowa Code section 901A.2(3).
3
there may have been theory for the expert to challenge the reliability of the DNA
evidence, such a theory was admittedly not known to defense counsel, and
therefore could not be attributed to his ineffectiveness. Ledezma v. State, 626
N.W.2d 134, 143 (Iowa 2001) (stating that counsel’s strategic decisions must be
based on reasonable investigation under the circumstances in order to withstand
an ineffectiveness claim).2
Next, we find that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to call
additional witnesses, as King did not show that a different outcome would have
resulted. Taylor v. State, 352 N.W.2d 683, 687 (Iowa 1984) (reasoning that a
petitioner must show that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome
would have been different if his counsel had presented the testimony of
additional witnesses). Finally, counsel was not ineffective for failing to present
evidence of false motives. We agree with the district court that regardless of the
victim’s motives, “the sole issue was whether King and the victim had sex,” and
there is substantial physical evidence to show that this occurred, thus negating
false claims motives. The district court set forth a very thorough recitation of the
relevant facts and applied the appropriate law; thus we affirm pursuant to Iowa
Court Rule 21.29 (1)(d) and (e).
AFFIRMED.
2
In a motion for new trial, this claim was presented to, but rejected, by the district court.
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.
