STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FREDERICK BRAGGS, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-317 / 08-0446
Filed May 29, 2009
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
FREDERICK BRAGGS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Don C. Nickerson,
Judge.
Defendant claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge
submission of a jury instruction that included assault as a lesser offense to the
crime of attempt to commit murder. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie Knipfer, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bridget Chambers, Assistant Attorney
General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and James Ward, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, P.J.
A man entered a Des Moines apartment without permission and
repeatedly stabbed a woman. The State subsequently charged Frederick Braggs
with several crimes including attempted murder in violation of Iowa Code
section 707.11 (2007).
At trial, the jury was instructed on the elements of
attempted murder and the elements of assault as a lesser-included offense of
attempted murder. The jury found Braggs guilty of the lesser offense of assault.1
On appeal, Braggs contends “trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting
to the inclusion of assault as a lesser-included offense to the offense attempt to
commit murder.” He maintains that, absent the instruction on this lesser-included
offense, the jury simply would have found him not guilty of attempted murder.
Braggs faces a significant hurdle because, long before his trial, Iowa
courts held that assault is a lesser-included offense of attempt to commit murder.
See State v. Luckett, 387 N.W.2d 298, 299 (Iowa 1986); State v. Powers, 278
N.W.2d 26, 28 (Iowa 1979); Blanford v. State, 340 N.W.2d 796, 797 (Iowa Ct.
App. 1983). As the issue was well-settled, trial counsel had no duty to raise it.
See Millam v. State, 745 N.W.2d 719, 721–22 (Iowa 2008).
For the same
reason, counsel also did not have an obligation to parse the cited case law and
question its validity, as Braggs maintains. See id. at 722 (“We do not expect
counsel to anticipate changes in the law, and counsel will not be found ineffective
for a lack of „clairvoyance.‟”); State v. Hepperle, 530 N.W.2d 735, 740 (Iowa
1995) (stating counsel did not breach an essential duty by failing to “predict” or
1
The remaining crimes are not at issue on appeal.
3
“foresee future changes” in the law).
Accordingly, Braggs‟s ineffective-
assistance-of-counsel claim fails.
We affirm Braggs‟s judgment and sentence.
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.
