Joseph Edward Albert Olea, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 16-2066

Background

Joseph Olea was convicted after a jury trial of child endangerment causing death (class B felony) for the death of his six‑month‑old son; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
Olea sought postconviction relief (PCR) claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel for (1) failing to object to an alleged thirteenth juror present when the jury was polled, and (2) failing to present evidence that treating physicians misdiagnosed cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) as the cause of death.
At PCR, the presiding trial judge testified only twelve jurors deliberated and that he mistakenly read an alternate’s name while polling; the court reporter and others corroborated that only twelve deliberated.
Olea’s defense expert (Dr. Hua) testified CVT could explain the death, but multiple State experts testified the child died of abusive head trauma and ruled out CVT; no medical records introduced established signs of CVT prior to death.
Olea also alleged ineffective assistance of PCR counsel for conceding the thirteenth‑juror claim in proposed findings, failing to introduce additional medical records, and not filing a Rule 1.904(2) motion seeking specific findings about the mother’s possible culpability.
The PCR court denied relief on all claims; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no breach of duty or prejudice from trial or PCR counsel’s performance.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to an alleged thirteenth juror	Olea: counsel should have objected because a thirteenth juror participated in deliberations	State: record and judge’s testimony show only 12 deliberated; no evidence a thirteenth juror participated	Held: No breach or prejudice; PCR court’s credibility finding that only 12 deliberated is controlling
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence that treating physicians missed CVT	Olea: additional medical records or cross with treating physicians would support undiagnosed CVT causation theory	State: Dr. Hua’s theory was presented; State experts rejected CVT and no records show CVT signs before death	Held: No prejudice; Olea failed to show that additional evidence would have changed outcome
Whether PCR counsel was ineffective for conceding the thirteenth‑juror claim after hearing	Olea: concession and refocusing deprived him of meaningful adversarial testing (structural error)	State: concession was tactical; claim lacked evidentiary support and counsel reasonably focused on CVT theory	Held: No ineffectiveness; concession was reasonable strategy and not a denial of counsel
Whether PCR counsel was ineffective for not filing a Rule 1.904(2) motion or pursuing mother‑liability theory	Olea: counsel should have sought specific findings and pursued theory that mother caused injuries	State: Olea never advanced mother‑liability in his PCR pleading; trial strategy focused on CVT theory; no evidence supported mother‑liability	Held: No breach or prejudice; claim not pleaded and unsupported by record

Key Cases Cited

Ennenga v. State, 812 N.W.2d 696 (Iowa 2012) (standard of review for ineffective‑assistance claims)
State v. Carroll, 767 N.W.2d 638 (Iowa 2009) (two‑part Strickland framework applied in Iowa)
State v. McKettrick, 480 N.W.2d 52 (Iowa 1992) (burden to prove ineffective assistance by preponderance)
Taylor v. State, 352 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 1984) (deference to trial court credibility findings)
Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 2001) (prejudice alone can dispose of ineffective‑assistance claims)
Brewer v. State, 444 N.W.2d 77 (Iowa 1989) (tactical decisions by counsel are generally respected)
State v. McPhillips, 580 N.W.2d 748 (Iowa 1998) (counsel not incompetent for abandoning meritless claims)
Lado v. State, 804 N.W.2d 248 (Iowa 2011) (structural error and circumstances that may presume ineffectiveness)