Denis Gailey, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 15-2183

Background

In April 2007 Denis Gailey (under a protective order) confronted his wife Dawn and their six‑year‑old daughter, pointed a gun, threatened to kill them, and forced Dawn to drive to a secluded farm; a later high‑speed chase ended with his arrest. Gailey was convicted in 2008 of two counts of first‑degree kidnapping, first‑degree burglary, and second‑degree arson; later pled to additional sexual‑abuse and related charges.
At trial the State played a recorded April 21, 2007 phone call in which Dawn accused Gailey of sexually abusing his stepdaughter (Jane Doe II) and Gailey made incriminating admissions; defense objected but the objection was held insufficient on direct appeal.
Gailey filed a postconviction relief (PCR) application claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to: (1) object to the kidnapping jury instruction lacking "intensifier" language for the confinement/removal factors; (2) object to inclusion of an intent‑to‑inflict‑serious‑injury element; and (3) preserve proper objections to admission of the taped phone conversations (hearsay/Rule 5.404(b) prior‑bad‑acts).
The PCR court denied relief; on appeal the court conducted de novo review of ineffective‑assistance claims under Strickland/Maxwell and affirmed the denial.
The appellate court found no prejudice from counsel’s failure to request "substantially"/"significantly" intensifier language because the evidence strongly supported substantial increased risk of harm and significantly lessened detection; counsel had no duty to raise a nonmeritorious claim about serious‑injury intent because pointing a gun and threats permitted a reasonable jury to find intent to seriously injure.
The court also held the taped conversation was admissible to "complete the story" and show motive/intent (not to prove the truth of the sexual‑abuse accusation), and that Gailey’s own admissions made any hearsay error cumulative and nonprejudicial; a concurrence disagreed that counsel’s failure to press a Rule 5.404(b) objection was non‑deficient but concurred in the result based on overwhelming evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to kidnapping marshalling instruction lacking "intensifier" terms	Gailey: instruction lowered burden on confinement/removal element; counsel should have demanded language that risk of harm be "substantial" and detection lessened "significantly"	State: instruction tracked uniform jury instruction; any deficiency would not be prejudicial given the evidence	Held: No prejudice — overwhelming evidence supported substantial risk of harm and significantly lessened detection; PCR denied
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to inclusion of intent‑to‑inflict‑serious‑injury element in instruction	Gailey: record shows coercion to exchange money, not intent to seriously injure	State: pointing a gun and repeated threats supported intent to seriously injure	Held: No deficiency — jury could reasonably find intent to seriously injure; counsel not ineffective
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve hearsay and Rule 5.404(b) objections to taped phone call accusing sexual abuse of a child	Gailey: tape was extensive evidence of separate sexual‑abuse acts and prejudicial; counsel's objection was inadequate	State: tape explained motive/intent and completed the narrative; Gailey's own admissions were admissible and made remaining material cumulative	Held: No prejudice — statements admitted to complete the story and explain motive; any error harmless; PCR denied
Whether trial counsel breached an essential duty by not making more specific evidentiary objections	Gailey: counsel’s objections were too general to preserve error	State: objections were made and issues were meritless or nonprejudicial	Held: Majority — no prejudicial deficiency; Concurrence — counsel erred on 5.404(b) objection but outcome unaffected by overwhelming evidence

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance standard)
State v. Rich, 305 N.W.2d 739 (Iowa 1981) (tripartite test for kidnapping: increased risk of harm, lessened detection, facilitated escape)
State v. Robinson, 859 N.W.2d 464 (Iowa 2015) (clarifies that confinement must substantially increase risk or significantly lessen detection/facilitate escape)
State v. Ripperger, 514 N.W.2d 740 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (approves uniform kidnapping jury instruction then in use)
State v. Braggs, 784 N.W.2d 31 (Iowa 2010) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance — reasonable probability of different outcome)
State v. Newell, 710 N.W.2d 6 (Iowa 2006) (hearsay rule and exceptions; relevancy of statements to complete the story)
State v. Cox, 781 N.W.2d 757 (Iowa 2010) (Rule 5.404(b) other‑acts admissibility for motive/intent)
State v. Ledezma, 626 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 2001) (limits on deference to counsel tactical decisions; counsel competence standard)
State v. Parker, 747 N.W.2d 196 (Iowa 2008) (no prejudice from counsel error where properly admitted evidence is overwhelming)
State v. Bayles, 551 N.W.2d 600 (Iowa 1996) (admissions by a party opponent are not hearsay; cumulative evidence not prejudicial)