Jason A. Brown, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa
15-1574
| Iowa Ct. App. | Mar 8, 2017Background
- Jason Brown was convicted of first-degree robbery after two men robbed a bank at gunpoint and stole over $45,000; fingerprints at the scene and witness identifications tied Brown to the crime.
- A green SUV seen near the bank was linked to Brown through its registered owner and witness identification; cash transactions and car repairs for a recently purchased vehicle were traced to Brown.
- Brown was in Wisconsin on unrelated charges when Iowa issued an arrest warrant; he waived extradition, was transferred to Iowa custody on December 14, 2010, and charged by trial information on December 17, 2010.
- Brown appealed his conviction and later sought postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to (1) move to dismiss the trial information as untimely, (2) object to fingerprint testimony lacking foundation, and (3) object to cell-phone-location evidence as hearsay.
- The district court denied relief; the Court of Appeals reviewed ineffective-assistance claims de novo and affirmed, finding no Strickland prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of charging (45-day rule) | Brown: Iowa arrest occurred Sept 16 or Nov 1, so charging after 45 days required dismissal | State: Brown not arrested by Iowa until transferred Dec 14; rule compliance | Held: No ineffective assistance; arrest occurred on transfer to Iowa, information timely |
| Foundation for "known" fingerprints | Brown: Kern compared scene prints to “known” prints labeled with Brown’s name without foundation | State: Fingerprint evidence admissible; defense strategically avoided foundation fight that could reveal prior fingerprinting | Held: No ineffective assistance; counsel's strategic choice reasonable |
| Cell-phone records hearsay | Brown: Verizon-related records were hearsay and custodian issues rendered them inadmissible | State: Records admissible through testimony; other strong evidence placed Brown at scene | Held: No ineffective assistance; any error not prejudicial given overwhelming other evidence |
| Cumulative prejudice | Brown: Combined errors would likely change verdict | State: Even discounting challenged evidence, other identifications and circumstantial proof remain compelling | Held: No cumulative Strickland prejudice; verdict would not likely differ |
Key Cases Cited
- Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 2001) (standard for ineffective assistance review)
- Jones v. State, 479 N.W.2d 265 (Iowa 1991) (burden of proof for Strickland elements)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (prejudice standard: reasonable probability of a different result)
- Abrahamson v. State, 746 N.W.2d 270 (Iowa 2008) (dismissal required for rule 2.33 violation)
- Utter v. State, 803 N.W.2d 647 (Iowa 2011) (counsel must ensure state meets speedy-charge timing)
- Wing v. State, 791 N.W.2d 243 (Iowa 2010) (arrest analysis using reasonable-person test)
- Lyrek v. State, 385 N.W.2d 248 (Iowa 1986) (defendant in another state's custody not arrested by requesting state until transfer)
- Kone v. State, 557 N.W.2d 97 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (deference to trial counsel's strategic decisions)
- Clay v. State, 824 N.W.2d 488 (Iowa 2012) (analysis of cumulative prejudice)