Lucas A. McAlister, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 16-0825

McAlister was convicted by jury of first-degree robbery in 2004; conviction affirmed on direct appeal. He filed for postconviction relief (PCR) in 2008 alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
Two principal PCR claims: (1) counsel failed to timely secure/advise about a plea offer and (2) counsel failed to investigate/present expert medical evidence after an investigator offered opinion testimony about stab-wound mechanics.
Prosecutor made a plea offer days before trial (to plead to two class C felonies and argue sentencing); McAlister rejected it and later asserted he would have accepted an earlier offer.
At trial an investigating officer testified (based on experience and hearsay about doctors’ statements) that the stab could not plausibly have been inflicted from the back seat; defense characterized this as ambush testimony requiring expert rebuttal.
McAlister later obtained an affidavit from a forensic pathologist opining the wound could have been inflicted from the back seat; he argued counsel should have used such an expert to obtain a new trial or to establish prejudice from counsel’s failures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not obtaining/communicating a plea earlier or advising about trial risks	McAlister: counsel failed to secure plea timely and didn’t advise him of trial pitfalls; he would have accepted an earlier offer	State: counsel repeatedly sought a plea; offer was made days before trial; defendant’s claim is self-serving and he didn’t show he would have accepted earlier	Denied — no objective proof McAlister would have accepted earlier offer; counsel did not breach duty
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/use medical expert to rebut investigator’s testimony and to seek a new trial	McAlister: investigator’s opinion lacked scientific basis; an expert (Dr. Teas) would have shown the verdict was unsupported and justified a new trial	State: investigator’s testimony was non-expert/common-knowledge; even if deficient, evidence of robbery and aiding/abetting was overwhelming; a meritless claim need not be pursued	Denied — no prejudice shown and no valid basis to obtain new trial

Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 2001) (two-part ineffective assistance test and prejudice standard)
Taylor v. State, 352 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 1984) (presumption counsel competence)
Artzer v. State, 609 N.W.2d 526 (Iowa 2000) (reasonable range of competency; strategic choices protected)
Lemasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856 (Iowa 2012) (de novo review for constitutional issues in PCR)
Dunbar v. State, 515 N.W.2d 12 (Iowa 1994) (must specify how counsel’s failures probably changed outcome)
Dempsey v. State, 860 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 2015) (requirement to show reasonable probability defendant would have accepted plea)
Brubaker v. State, 805 N.W.2d 164 (Iowa 2011) (attorney not required to pursue meritless claims)