Alan Duane Beard, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa
15-1393
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jun 7, 2017Background
- In November 2013 Alan Duane Beard pled guilty to eluding and OWI; sentences were suspended and Beard was placed on probation, later revoked in October 2014 leading to incarceration.
- Beard filed a postconviction-relief (PCR) application in November 2014 raising numerous claims and amended that application multiple times; an unreported April 20, 2015 hearing addressed many of his filings.
- Beard alleged trial counsel was ineffective for allowing a guilty plea despite Beard’s alleged incompetency (IQ ~70, mental-health diagnoses, interruption of psychotropic meds while in custody). He also claimed counsel failed to obtain video evidence, failed to file motions/appeals, failed to pursue diminished-capacity defenses, and violated Miranda issues.
- The district court reviewed transcripts, counsel conduct, and Beard’s PCR testimony, found no indication Beard was incompetent, held counsel’s choices were within professional range, and ruled on the major issues in an April 21 order.
- Beard appealed the denial of PCR relief, arguing the district court improperly denied competency- and counsel-related claims and failed to address some pro se filings; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency to plead / ineffective assistance for failing to seek competency evaluation | Beard: mental impairments and withdrawal of meds made him incompetent; counsel should have sought evaluation | State: presumption of competency; record (plea/sentencing/probation transcripts and counsel observations) showed no competency concerns | Court: affirmed — Beard failed to overcome presumption; record showed no competency problems |
| PCR counsel ineffective for not producing mental-health witnesses or experts | Beard: PCR counsel erred by not presenting mental-health testimony and expert on competency | State: Beard did not identify witnesses, their expected testimony, or how omission caused prejudice | Court: affirmed — vague allegations insufficient to show deficient performance or prejudice |
| District court failed to rule on numerous pro se/amended claims (video, Miranda, arrest of judgment, appeals, diminished capacity, restitution) | Beard: many claims were not addressed and require remand | State: April 20 hearing and April 21 order identified and resolved the remaining issues; many claims were addressed or withdrawn | Court: affirmed — district court addressed claims in its orders and resolved meritless or withdrawn matters |
| Restitution / suspended fines after revocation | Beard: alleged inconsistency in suspension of fines after probation revocation | State: record shows fines suspended for the eluding charge but not for OWI; restitution plan reflected original sentencing | Court: affirmed — restitution plan consistent with sentencing orders; no error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Everett v. State, 789 N.W.2d 151 (Iowa 2010) (standard of review for PCR and de novo review when constitutional rights alleged)
- State v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192 (Iowa 2010) (presumption of competency and burden to prove incompetency)
- Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 2001) (giving weight to trial court credibility findings in de novo PCR review)
- Ennenga v. State, 812 N.W.2d 696 (Iowa 2012) (requirements for ineffective-assistance claims: identify deficiency and resulting prejudice)
- Anfinson v. State, 758 N.W.2d 496 (Iowa 2008) (diminished capacity does not negate general intent crimes)
- Gamble v. State, 723 N.W.2d 443 (Iowa 2006) (procedural treatment of pro se claims and amendments in PCR proceedings)