Daniel Lado v. State of Iowa
804 N.W.2d 248
| Iowa | 2011Background
- Lado pleaded guilty to dependent adult abuse in July 2006, with a ten-year term suspended and probation, later reinstated after revocation.
- Lado repeatedly sought sentence reconsideration; district court denied.
- May 9, 2007, Lado filed a pro se postconviction relief petition requesting counsel; no action for about 18 months.
- November 5, 2008, district court appointed counsel; court warned relief was subject to Rule 1.944 dismissal for failure to prosecute.
- Counsel failed to seek a continuance or reinstatement; did not respond to State’s Rule 1.944 motions; hearing occurred with unreported proceedings; May 6, 2009 dismissal for failure to prosecute.
- Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal but preserved the postconviction relief claim for merits; Supreme Court vacated, reversed, and remanded for merits after finding structural error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did counsel’s failure to seek relief constitute ineffective assistance? | Lado’s counsel abdicated duties, causing dismissal. | Counsel’s actions were within discretion; no automatic prejudice shown. | Yes; counsel breached an essential duty, causing dismissal. |
| Was the failure-of-counsel error structural, requiring automatic reversal without showing prejudice? | Structural error makes entire proceeding unreliable, presuming prejudice. | Prejudice must be shown unless structural error is proven. | Structural error occurred; prejudice presumed; remedy appropriate. |
| Should the district court’s Rule 1.944 dismissal be reversed and the case remanded for merits adjudication? | Merits testing should occur if counsel’s deficiency is addressed. | Dismissal was proper under Rule 1.944 absent timely action. | Yes; reversal and remand for merits adjudication is necessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance)
- Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (presumed prejudice for structural error)
- Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (presumes prejudice where defendant denied chosen counsel)
- Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (prescribes prejudice framework for counsel’s failure to file appeal)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (structural error analysis related to counsel deficiency)
- Dunbar v. State, 515 N.W.2d 12 (Iowa 1994) (recognizes right to counsel in postconviction relief proceedings)
- Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 2001) (importance of diligence in ineffective-assistance analysis)
- Stallings / Feregrino (cited), 756 N.W.2d 700 (Iowa 2008) (structural-error considerations in Iowa caselaw)