Gabriel Vasquez, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa
16-0235
| Iowa Ct. App. | Apr 5, 2017Background
- Gabriel Vasquez was convicted by jury of two counts of second-degree sexual abuse and one count of third-degree sexual abuse involving his daughter; he received consecutive and concurrent prison terms and his direct appeal affirmed the convictions.
- On direct appeal this court held Vasquez was not in custody during a police interview, so Miranda warnings were not required; a voluntariness/promissory-leniency claim was not preserved on direct appeal.
- Vasquez filed a postconviction-relief (PCR) application claiming trial counsel was ineffective for failing to suppress a confession video (promissory leniency and voluntariness/Miranda), failing to request a limiting jury instruction, and failing to obtain the complaining witness’s mental-health records; he also raised claims of prosecutorial misconduct and PCR-counsel ineffectiveness.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief; Vasquez appealed the denial.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding (1) the limiting-instruction claim was not preserved and would not show prejudice, (2) no promise of leniency occurred, (3) custody/Miranda and mental-health-records issues were barred by res judicata, (4) prosecutorial-misconduct complaints were not preserved by a posttrial Rule 1.904(2) motion, and (5) PCR counsel’s representation did not amount to structural error or prejudicial ineffectiveness.
Issues
| Issue | Vasquez’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel ineffective for not requesting a limiting instruction about officer’s statements on video | Counsel should have requested instruction excluding officer’s questions/statements from truth consideration | Claim not raised in PCR trial; and even if raised, no reasonable probability outcome would differ | Not preserved; alternatively, no prejudice — claim fails |
| Trial counsel ineffective for not moving to suppress confession video based on promissory leniency | Officer’s remarks (e.g., not a predator; implications about victim’s help) induced confession via promise of leniency | Video contains no specific assurance or promise of leniency; officer only said he would record statements | No promise of leniency shown; suppression motion would fail |
| Confession involuntary / Miranda required because Vasquez was in custody | Vasquez argues custody existed and Miranda warnings were required; requests new custody test | Custody was litigated and decided on direct appeal; res judicata bars relitigation | Barred by res judicata (previous direct-appeal determination upheld) |
| Trial counsel ineffective for not obtaining complaining witness’s mental-health records | Records would show fabrication/inconsistent statements and were waived by submitting to exam | Issue litigated on direct appeal; records found irrelevant and exclusion proper; res judicata applies | Barred by res judicata; no relief |
| PCR court failed to rule on pro se claims / prosecutorial misconduct | PCR court did not address these pro se claims | No Rule 1.904(2) motion filed to secure rulings; claims not preserved | Not preserved; alternatively, prosecutorial-misconduct allegations lack prejudice |
| PCR counsel ineffective / structural error for not retaining experts and not filing posttrial motion | Counsel’s omissions were pervasive and caused structural error requiring reversal | Multiple attorneys represented Vasquez, counsel investigated and presented evidence; no constructive denial of counsel; failures wouldn’t change result | Representation not so deficient as to be structural error; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Howard, 825 N.W.2d 32 (Iowa 2012) (discusses promises of leniency and when confessions are involuntary)
- Lado v. State, 804 N.W.2d 248 (Iowa 2011) (defines structural-error circumstances for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2002) (Rule 1.904(2) motion requirement to preserve claims when a court fails to rule)
- State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 2003) (prosecutorial-misconduct standard requires prejudice to show unfair trial)
- Dunbar v. State, 515 N.W.2d 12 (Iowa 1994) (PCR applicant may claim PCR counsel ineffectiveness but must show prejudice)
- Holmes v. State, 775 N.W.2d 733 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (res judicata bars relitigation of issues previously adjudicated)