Corey Darnell Moore, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 15-1779

Background

In January 2011 Moore joined co-conspirators in a planned robbery of Alonzo Henderson’s home to steal marijuana; Henderson was shot during the incident and large quantities of marijuana were taken.
Multiple witnesses (co-conspirators and the victim) testified against Moore; surveillance, cell records, and physical evidence (marijuana residue, a gun at scene) corroborated them.
Moore was convicted of first‑degree robbery, assault causing serious injury, and possession with intent to deliver marijuana while in immediate possession of a firearm; direct appeal affirmed.
Moore filed a postconviction-relief (PCR) application raising numerous ineffective-assistance claims against trial, direct-appeal, and postconviction counsel and additional challenges to instructions, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing.
The PCR court denied relief on most claims; on appeal the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded only to vacate and reconsider the attorney‑fee restitution portion of Moore’s sentence for failure to determine his reasonable ability to pay.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: theft of marijuana (predicate for robbery)	Marijuana is contraband per se and not “property,” so counsel was ineffective for not challenging theft element	Contraband can be treated as property for theft/robbery liability; settled law rejects claim	Denied — counsel not ineffective; courts recognize theft of contraband supports robbery/larceny convictions
Robbery jury theory (joint criminal conduct/burglary underlying)	Counsel should have moved for acquittal / objected to joint-criminal-conduct instruction because Robinson consented to entry (no burglary)	Instruction was correct; overwhelming evidence of Moore’s personal involvement; Strickland prejudice not shown	Denied — no prejudice; verdict consistent with individual guilt despite acquittal on burglary
Accomplice instruction / corroboration	Instruction failed to make clear defendant cannot be convicted solely on accomplice testimony	Instruction explicitly required corroboration; ample corroborating evidence existed	Denied — instruction adequate; law-of-the-case binds corroboration finding
Controlled-substance instruction (lesser-included)	Failure to include proper lesser-included instruction entitles Moore to relief	State concedes instruction was incorrect but argues no prejudice because Moore never proposed theory relying on lesser offense and evidence of firearm-possession was overwhelming	Denied — no constitutional prejudice; overwhelming evidence made different result unlikely
Officer testimony (vouching)	Officer Briggs improperly vouched for witness credibility; counsel ineffective for not objecting	Briggs testified as a fact/lay-opinion witness about investigation and witness demeanor; testimony admissible	Denied — no duty to raise meritless objection; testimony permissible and brief
Hearsay (coconspirator statements)	Cooper relayed Dukes’s out-of-court statements; counsel should have objected	Statements were made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy and thus admissible as party-opponent/coconspirator statements	Denied — statements admissible under coconspirator exception
Verdict-urging supplemental instruction	Trial court coerced verdict; counsel ineffective for not objecting; appellate counsel ineffective for not preserving	Verdict-urging instructions are permitted; court’s polling and language did not coerce; additional deliberation lasted ~2.5 hours	Denied — instruction not coercive; no prejudice; counsel’s choice strategic and reasonable
Postconviction counsel failed to provide depositions	Failure to include depositions deprived Moore of effective PCR advocacy and prevented proper impeachment showing	PCR record and testimony showed trial counsel’s impeachment conduct; defect did not amount to structural error; court cannot "preserve" PCR counsel claim for later PCR	Denied — Moore failed to prove breach or prejudice; claim not preserved for future PCR under cited statute
Sentencing: order to pay full appointed counsel fees	Fee order exceeded permissible process and court did not determine Moore’s reasonable ability to pay	State conceded court failed to determine ability to pay and that remand was appropriate	Granted in part — attorney-fee order vacated and remanded for determination of Moore’s reasonable ability to pay

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong ineffective assistance standard) (Note: opinion cites Strickland for performance/prejudice framework)
State v. Ludtke, 446 N.W.2d 797 (Iowa 1989) (discussing contraband per se and property-interest limits in forfeiture/contract contexts)
State v. Sego, 140 N.W. 802 (Iowa 1913) (theft of contraband liquor supports larceny conviction)
State v. Thorndike, 860 N.W.2d 316 (Iowa 2015) (explaining Strickland prejudice requirement in instructional-error/ineffective-assistance context)
State v. Smith, 739 N.W.2d 289 (Iowa 2007) (elements/instructional standards for robbery)
State v. Kidd, 239 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 1976) (coconspirator statement admissibility and when conspiracy is shown)
Von Hoff v. State, 415 N.W.2d 647 (Iowa 1987) (defendant's reasonable ability to pay prerequisite for restitution/fee orders)