Antonio Ray Moore, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 15-1592

Antonio Moore pled guilty to two counts of second-degree theft and one count of possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of domestic abuse pursuant to a plea agreement in which the State agreed to recommend the PSI sentence and recommend any prison terms run concurrently; Moore could still argue for other outcomes at sentencing.
A presentence investigation (PSI) prepared before sentencing recommended incarceration and listed two contested items in "Arrest History Comments": a 2002 fifth-degree-theft entry with disposition "transfer of venue" and a 2003 assault entry with disposition "adjudicated."
At sentencing the prosecutor stated the State "recommends prison" consistent with the PSI and that the State would be "satisfied with concurrent sentences."
The court imposed three five-year prison terms to run consecutively, citing Moore’s prior record of convictions among other factors (age, statements at sentencing, substance abuse).
Moore filed a postconviction-relief application alleging (1) the prosecutor breached the plea agreement by not properly commending the agreed sentence and trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object, and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to correct PSI errors; the district court denied relief and Moore appealed.

Issue	Moore's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor breached plea agreement by saying State would be "satisfied with concurrent sentences"	Moore: phrase showed reservation and effectively deprived him of the bargain	State: statement amounts to recommendation/approval, not a material reservation	No breach — language constitutes a recommendation; no obligation to an "enthusiastic" commendation
Whether trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to alleged breach	Moore: counsel should have objected at sentencing to protect plea benefit	State: no breach occurred, so objection would be meritless	No ineffective assistance — failure to object to non-breach is not deficient performance
Whether PSI errors (two contested entries) prejudiced sentencing and support ineffective assistance for counsel's failure to correct them	Moore: inaccurate PSI entries influenced court to impose consecutive prison terms	State: court relied on multiple valid factors and cited prior convictions; contested entries were remote and did not reflect convictions	No prejudice shown — court did not rely on those entries and neither entry reflected convictions; cannot show different outcome
Whether PCR counsel ineffective for failing to preserve any claims	Moore: requests finding if preservation was lacking	State: claims were preserved and rejected on merits	Not addressed on merits because claims were preserved and rejected

Ennenga v. State, 812 N.W.2d 696 (Iowa 2012) (standard for de novo review of ineffective-assistance claims)
Carroll v. State, 767 N.W.2d 638 (Iowa 2009) (two-part test for ineffective assistance: duty and prejudice)
McKettrick v. State, 480 N.W.2d 52 (Iowa 1992) (applicant bears burden to show ineffectiveness by preponderance)
Horness v. State, 600 N.W.2d 294 (Iowa 1999) (prosecutor must commend and present recommended sentence to avoid plea agreement breach)
Frencher v. State, 873 N.W.2d 281 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (definition of breach: acting contrary to common purpose and defendant’s justified expectations)
Dempsey v. State, 860 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 2015) (if a claimant fails to establish either deficient performance or prejudice, the claim fails)
Bearse v. State, 748 N.W.2d 211 (Iowa 2008) (defendant must show sentencing outcome would have been different to prove prejudice)
Phillips v. State, 610 N.W.2d 840 (Iowa 2000) (no need to address ineffective-assistance-of-PCR-counsel claim when underlying claims are rejected on merits)