Deanthony D. Kirkland, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 16-0642

Background

In October 2012 Kirkland participated in a robbery; police identified him after witnesses connected him to a pizza delivery. Officers stopped him leaving his residence for equipment violations (no plate lamp and an obscured temporary tag). During the stop officers spoke about the robbery and said they were obtaining a search warrant. Kirkland told them there was a nonoperable handgun in his bedroom; officers found the gun at his home and marijuana in his vehicle.
Kirkland moved to suppress the gun and his statements (not the traffic stop); the motion was denied and he was convicted of first‑degree robbery, first‑degree theft, and carrying weapons; he later pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
Kirkland’s direct appeal of the robbery/theft/weapons convictions was affirmed. He filed two postconviction relief (PCR) actions: PCCV125656 (challenging the robbery/theft/weapons proceedings) and PCCV127705 (challenging the marijuana conviction). Both were denied by the district court; Kirkland appealed.
On appeal the court reviewed claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel: failure to timely file an appeal in the marijuana case, failure to move to suppress the traffic stop, failure to object to certain opening‑statement remarks, failure to challenge admissibility of the gun, and failure to object to the same judge presiding at trial and the PCR hearing.
The Court of Appeals held counsel was ineffective for failing to timely file the appeal in PCCV127705 (presumptively prejudicial), but rejected all underlying merits: the traffic stop was objectively lawful, the prosecutor’s opening remark did not produce prejudice, the gun was properly admissible, and there was no basis to recuse the trial judge.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was counsel ineffective for failing to timely file the appeal in PCCV127705?	Kirkland: counsel did not timely file the appeal, depriving him of the appellate proceeding.	State: appeal was untimely under rule; but effectiveness of counsel is at issue.	Court: counsel was ineffective for failing to file the appeal; denial of appellate process is presumptively prejudicial.
Was the traffic stop pretextual and should counsel have moved to suppress?	Kirkland: stop was pretextual (officers actually suspected robbery); counsel failed to investigate or seek suppression.	State: stop was supported by observed equipment violations; pretextual intent is irrelevant under Iowa precedent applying an objective test.	Court: stop was lawful; counsel not ineffective for failing to file a meritless suppression motion.
Was prosecutor’s opening statement (that Kirkland cocked the gun) improper and should counsel have objected?	Kirkland: statement inflamed the jury and was unsupported by evidence; counsel’s failure to object was ineffective assistance.	State: statement was consistent with evidence in the minutes and the codefendant’s expected testimony; jury was instructed opening statements are not evidence.	Court: no prosecutorial misconduct or prejudice shown; counsel not ineffective.
Was counsel ineffective for failing to challenge admissibility of the gun found in the home?	Kirkland: gun differed from witness descriptions (color, operability) so counsel should have objected to admitting it.	State: testimony and photographs linked the gun to the robbery; operability/cocking was not essential to possession; objection would be meritless.	Court: evidence supported connection and admissibility; counsel not ineffective for failing to object.
Should the judge have recused from the PCR because the same judge presided at trial?	Kirkland: counsel waived any conflict without consulting him; the judge’s comments suggested potential bias/witness role.	State: no evidence of bias or partiality; recusal test is whether a reasonable person would question impartiality.	Court: no evidence of bias; motion for recusal would be meritless; counsel not ineffective.

Key Cases Cited

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (pretextual traffic stops are permissible under the Fourth Amendment)
State v. Kreps, 650 N.W.2d 636 (Iowa 2002) (Iowa courts apply an objective test to traffic stops)
Roe v. Flores‑Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (failure to file a client’s timely appeal can be presumptively prejudicial)
State v. Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488 (Iowa 2012) (counsel breaches an essential duty when errors are so serious counsel is not functioning as the Sixth Amendment requires)
Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 2001) (standards for proving ineffective assistance of counsel: deficiency and prejudice)
State v. Ray, 516 N.W.2d 863 (Iowa 1994) (counsel is not ineffective for failing to file a meritless motion)