Jeremy D. Yocum, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 15-0545

Jeremy D. Yocum pleaded guilty in March 2008 to conspiracy to manufacture <5 grams meth; he absconded from the Iowa Residential Treatment Center (IRTC) and failed to appear for his 2008 sentencing.
In January 2011 Yocum pleaded guilty to failure to appear for sentencing under Iowa Code § 811.2(8) (2007).
In 2013 Yocum filed a postconviction-relief (PCR) application alleging (1) plea counsel was ineffective for not moving to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds and (2) plea counsel misadvised about concurrency with a federal sentence; the PCR court denied relief.
On appeal Yocum raised a new claim: his PCR counsel was ineffective for not alleging plea counsel allowed a guilty plea without a factual basis (arguing his IRTC placement was not a “release pursuant to this section” under § 811.2).
The appellate court found the record incomplete for deciding the new ineffective-assistance-of-postconviction-counsel claim because the placement order was not in the record, and therefore preserved the claim for further PCR proceedings; it rejected Yocum’s separate pro se challenge to the conviction/sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PCR counsel was ineffective for failing to raise that plea counsel permitted a guilty plea lacking a factual basis	Yocum: PCR counsel should have argued plea counsel violated an essential duty by allowing a plea without factual basis (IRTC placement not a “release”)	State: Record must show the placement authority; absent record, claim cannot be resolved on appeal	Court: Claim preserved for further PCR proceedings because the record is inadequate to decide; ineffective-assistance claim available on appeal
Whether Yocum’s conviction/sentence was improper because the related state charge was later dismissed after federal prosecution	Yocum: Dismissal of the underlying state charge after related federal conviction renders the failure-to-appear conviction/sentence improper	State: The dismissal of the underlying charge does not invalidate the failure-to-appear conviction or sentence here	Court: Yocum’s pro se arguments lacked merit; court adopted district court’s resolution and affirmed

Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2002) (issue preservation principle)
State v. Fountain, 786 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2010) (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims exception to preservation rules)
Hannan v. State, 732 N.W.2d 45 (Iowa 2007) (pragmatic approach to ineffective-assistance-of-postconviction-counsel claims)
Dunbar v. State, 515 N.W.2d 12 (Iowa 1994) (recognizing statutory right to effective assistance of PCR counsel)
State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128 (Iowa 2006) (standard for proving ineffective assistance in PCR proceedings)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective-assistance Strickland standard)
State v. Ortiz, 789 N.W.2d 761 (Iowa 2010) (counsel’s duty not to permit a guilty plea lacking factual basis; prejudice presumed)
Jones v. State, 479 N.W.2d 265 (Iowa 1991) (PCR proceedings are civil, not criminal)