Bobbi Jo Merchant, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa
16-0561
| Iowa Ct. App. | Feb 22, 2017Background
- On August 23, 2013, police responded to a family disturbance; Bobbi Merchant was arrested after allegedly threatening her mother, Brea, with a knife and slashing step‑father’s tires. Bobbi was charged with domestic abuse assault (aggravated misdemeanor) and later pled guilty to simple assault (simple misdemeanor).
- No direct appeal was filed; Bobbi filed a postconviction relief (PCR) application on May 15, 2015 alleging two ineffective‑assistance‑of‑counsel claims.
- Claim 1: trial counsel failed to investigate by not interviewing Brea, who later (in 2015) provided statements recanting her contemporaneous handwritten statement to officers that Bobbi threatened her with a knife and had asked for a no‑contact order.
- Claim 2: trial counsel failed to advise Bobbi of the elements of the charged offense and the offense to which she pled guilty; there is no recorded plea colloquy because the conviction was a simple misdemeanor.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the State; the Court of Appeals reviews de novo whether counsel breached an essential duty and whether prejudice resulted under Strickland/Hill standards.
Issues
| Issue | Merchant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel breached duty by not interviewing Brea | Counsel did not investigate; an interview would have shown Brea never was threatened | Brea’s contemporaneous handwritten statement to officers (and officers’ corroboration) established the assault; investigation was unnecessary | No breach: counsel reasonably relied on Brea’s contemporaneous statement and known facts |
| Whether Brea’s later recantation creates a genuine factual issue for PCR | Recantation shows counsel’s failure prejudiced defense and undermines record | Recantation is a bare allegation that directly contradicts contemporaneous record and fails threshold credibility for a hearing | Recantation lacks credibility given the earlier statement; summary judgment proper |
| Whether counsel failed to advise Merchant of elements of offenses prior to pleading | Merchant asserts she was not informed of elements for charged or pleaded offenses | Court points to sentencing court’s finding plea was voluntary and intelligently made; offense names are sufficiently descriptive; Merchant’s age and prior convictions support comprehension | No prejudice: record supports that Merchant understood the charges; summary judgment proper |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on PCR ineffective‑assistance claims | Merchant seeks a hearing on factual disputes | State argues no genuine material facts and legal insufficiency of Merchant’s claims | Affirmed: no genuine issue of material fact and State entitled to judgment as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice when counsel’s errors likely changed defendant’s decision to plead guilty)
- Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 2001) (duty to investigate is context‑dependent; counsel may reasonably forgo investigation)
- Foster v. State, 395 N.W.2d 637 (Iowa 1986) (recantations that contradict contemporaneous record must meet a credibility threshold to warrant a hearing)
- Yarborough v. State, 536 N.W.2d 493 (Iowa 1995) (offense names can be sufficiently descriptive to inform accused of nature of charge)
- Finney v. State, 834 N.W.2d 46 (Iowa 2013) (voluntariness and intelligence of plea requires understanding law in relation to facts)
- Thorndike, 860 N.W.2d 316 (Iowa 2015) (de novo review standard for PCR proceedings)