Paulino Perez Mondragon, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 15-0182

In 2009 Perez-Mondragon was convicted by a jury of first-degree robbery and assault while participating in a felony; conviction was previously affirmed on direct appeal.
In July 2013 he filed a postconviction-relief (PCR) application, later amended with counsel, raising multiple claims; the PCR court granted relief in part but denied relief on the prosecutorial-misconduct claim.
Perez-Mondragon argues three prosecutor comments in closing improperly attacked his credibility, intelligence, and national origin: (1) that he "finally did come clean" to police, (2) calling his conduct "boneheaded," and (3) commenting he had "no idea" how things are done in Mexico in response to defense references to the defendant’s origin.
Trial evidence included stolen goods and two knives hidden under a mattress in defendant’s apartment; defendant testified the knives were used for home repairs and initially lied to police but later admitted approaching the victim with a knife.
Trial counsel did not object to the prosecutor’s closing remarks; Perez-Mondragon therefore raised prosecutorial-misconduct as an ineffective-assistance claim in the PCR proceeding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor’s closing comments amounted to misconduct	Prosecutor’s statements improperly attacked credibility, intelligence, and nationality and were prejudicial	Comments were fair response to defense themes, partly invited by defense, and not sufficiently severe	No prosecutorial-misconduct prejudice; PCR court properly denied relief
Whether defense counsel’s failure to object was ineffective assistance	Trial counsel should have objected to comments; failure prejudiced outcome	Even if comments improper, any objection would have been meritless because comments were permissible or invited	No ineffective assistance — no prejudice so claim fails
Whether statements about defendant’s inconsistent statements constituted improper comment on credibility	Prosecutor impermissibly vouched for police account and impeached defendant unfairly	Prosecutor accurately pointed out inconsistencies consistent with defendant’s own testimony	Not misconduct — comment tracked defendant’s trial testimony
Whether remarks about defendant’s national origin were improper and prejudicial	Prosecutor’s reference to Mexico and how people do things there injected impermissible ethnic bias	Defense introduced national-origin theme; State merely rebutted; jury instructions limited weight of arguments	Not prejudicial; defense invited issue; jury instructed; evidence was strong

Tompkins v. State, 859 N.W.2d 631 (Iowa 2015) (standard for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel review and two-prong test)
Ambrose v. State, 861 N.W.2d 550 (Iowa 2015) (ineffective-assistance claims may be resolved under either performance or prejudice prong)
Graves v. State, 668 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 2003) (test and factors for determining prosecutorial misconduct prejudice)
Musser v. State, 721 N.W.2d 734 (Iowa 2006) (attorney arguments are not evidence; jury instructions can cure argument misconduct)
Brothern v. State, 832 N.W.2d 187 (Iowa 2013) (counsel not ineffective for failing to pursue meritless claims)