DANNY ROBINSON, Applicant-Appellant, vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-423 / 08-1094
Filed July 2, 2009
DANNY ROBINSON,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert J. Blink,
Judge.
Appellant appeals the postconviction court’s ruling denying his application
for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
Christopher Kragnes, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bridget Chambers, Assistant Attorney
General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and George Karnas, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Miller, JJ.
2
VOGEL, J.
Danny Robinson appeals the postconviction court’s denial of his
application for postconviction relief. On our de novo review, we affirm. Ledezma
v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134, 141 (Iowa 2001).
In December 2004, a jury found Robinson guilty of arson in the first
degree, a class B felony in violation of Iowa Code sections 712.1 and 712.2
(2003).1
Robinson asserts his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to “move and
investigate possible motion to suppress statements made by the defendant
during a custodial interrogation.” At the postconviction hearing, trial counsel was
asked why he did not move to suppress statements made by Robinson. He
answered, “[W]ell, I would imagine—I mean, based upon what I remember of it, it
was a non-custodial conversation, so therefore, there wouldn’t be any basis to
file a Motion to Suppress.” The record supports the same. After police received
a radio broadcast that he may be a suspect in an arson investigation, Robinson
was located and stopped while walking. Police talked with Robinson for a few
minutes, until they got into a police van to get out of the heavy rain.
The
questioning continued for a few more minutes, after which Robinson was
arrested for domestic assault. We agree with the postconviction court finding
that nothing in the record indicates Robinson was in custody at the time of
questioning. As such, we affirm the postconviction court’s findings of no breach
of duty or resulting prejudice. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104
1
This court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal. State v. Robinson, No. 08-1094
(Iowa Ct. App. May 10, 2006).
3
S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 693 (1984) (holding a defendant must prove
both (1) counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and (2) prejudice resulted on
an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim).
Having reviewed the record and agreeing with the district court’s fact
findings, reasoning, and conclusions of law, we affirm pursuant to Iowa Rule
21.29(1)(a), (c), (d), 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.
