Luis Guzman-Perez, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 15-0519

Background

On Oct. 14, 2006, Luis Guzman‑Perez was charged with first‑degree murder after a party altercation in which a shot from his revolver killed Josh Wohlman; jury convicted him of second‑degree murder in Feb. 2008.
Witness accounts conflicted: Guzman‑Perez claimed the gun fired accidentally during a fall; other witnesses described threats, pointing the gun, or distance of several feet; forensic evidence showed close‑range stippling but was contested.
Some clothing seized (pea coat, t‑shirt, jeans, shoes) were tested and showed no victim blood; a striped sweatshirt’s existence/handling was disputed and was not tested by the DCI.
Guzman‑Perez filed a postconviction relief (PCR) petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain/test the striped sweatshirt or seek a spoliation instruction, failing to object to jury instructions on malice, failing to retain/use various experts, failing to effectively cross‑examine witnesses, and failing to call favorable lay witnesses or a crime‑scene reconstructionist.
The district court denied relief; on appeal from the PCR denial the Court of Appeals reviewed claims de novo and affirmed, concluding counsel’s strategic choices were reasonable and Guzman‑Perez failed to show deficient performance or prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Spoliation / striped sweatshirt	The missing striped sweatshirt may have contained Wohlman’s blood and counsel should have obtained/tested it and requested a spoliation instruction	State and trial court: no evidence sweatshirt had blood, was returned to family, no proof State intentionally destroyed it; counsel had no reason to treat it as evidentiary	No duty shown; no spoliation instruction warranted; counsel not ineffective
Malice‑aforethought jury instruction	Counsel should have objected or requested additional limiting language that the inference may be rebutted by accident/other evidence	Instruction given was the uniform instruction, correct statement of law; it permits but does not require an inference; counsel emphasized permissive nature in argument	Instruction accurate; no duty to object; counsel not ineffective
Failure to retain/use experts and investigate witnesses	Counsel failed to call experts (alcohol/perception, lighting, firearms, reconstruction) and failed to call favorable lay witnesses to support accidental theory	Counsel reasonably evaluated need for experts/witnesses, expected limited value or harmful impeachment, and made strategic choices with defendant’s agreement	Strategic decisions were reasonable; experts/witnesses would not likely change result; counsel not ineffective
Appellate counsel performance	Appellate counsel should have pursued issues more vigorously on direct appeal	Counsel moved to withdraw after finding no nonfrivolous issues; supreme court required weight‑of‑evidence review and preserved ineffective assistance claims for PCR	Bare assertion insufficient; no specific deficient performance shown; appellate counsel not ineffective

Key Cases Cited

State v. Fountain, 786 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2010) (ineffective‑assistance claims exception to preservation)
Lemasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856 (Iowa 2012) (de novo review of PCR ineffective‑assistance claims)
Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 2001) (two‑part ineffective‑assistance test: duty and prejudice)
Taylor v. State, 352 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 1984) (presumption counsel competent)
State v. Artzer, 609 N.W.2d 526 (Iowa 2000) (representation must be within normal competency)
Fryer v. State, 325 N.W.2d 400 (Iowa 1982) (no hindsight Monday‑morning quarterbacking)
State v. Brubaker, 805 N.W.2d 164 (Iowa 2011) (counsel not ineffective for failing to make meritless claims)
State v. Langlet, 283 N.W.2d 330 (Iowa 1979) (spoliation instruction elements)
State v. Hartsfield, 681 N.W.2d 626 (Iowa 2004) (requirements to give spoliation inference instruction)
State v. Ambrose, 861 N.W.2d 550 (Iowa 2015) (caution in using weapon‑use malice inference)
State v. Green, 896 N.W.2d 770 (Iowa 2017) (context matters for uniform inference instruction)
State v. Bousman, 276 N.W.2d 421 (Iowa 1979) (trial instructions judged on accurately stating law)
State v. Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488 (Iowa 2012) (cumulative error in ineffective‑assistance claims requires at least one deficient act)
Dunbar v. State, 515 N.W.2d 12 (Iowa 1994) (speculative complaint about counsel insufficient)
Gail v. Clark, 410 N.W.2d 662 (Iowa 1987) (credibility determinations are for the jury)