Robert Krogmann, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa
15-0772
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jan 25, 2017Background
- Robert Krogmann shot his girlfriend multiple times; convicted by a jury of attempted murder and willful injury; judgment and sentence affirmed on direct appeal.
- The State obtained a pretrial asset-freeze order affecting about $3.3 million in Krogmann’s assets; the court allowed limited use of funds subject to court approval and conservatorship oversight.
- Krogmann retained multiple attorneys (paid from conservatorship funds) and sought court approval to expend funds for defense experts and a jury consultant; the prosecutor objected to some expenditures and the court denied funding for unnamed experts/consultants.
- Krogmann asserted multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims in postconviction relief, focusing principally on counsel’s failure to adequately challenge the asset freeze and related interference with defense spending/strategy; also claimed counsel failed to obtain phone and mental-health records, hire stronger experts, move for mistrial, and object to certain prosecutorial conduct.
- The district court denied postconviction relief after an evidentiary hearing; the Court of Appeals reviews de novo and affirms, analyzing Strickland prejudice, structural-error doctrines, and whether the freeze impaired counsel’s performance or access to strategy/work product.
Issues
| Issue | Krogmann's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Asset freeze / ineffective assistance | Counsel failed to timely and forcefully challenge the freeze, file reconsideration, or preserve error; freeze deprived him of counsel choice and impaired defense | Freeze did not deprive him of counsel of choice; conservatorship paid counsel; objections were within court protocol; no prejudice shown | Counsel breached duty by not citing controlling Maniccia precedent, but no structural error; applying Strickland, no reasonable probability of different result; claim denied |
| Failure to retain stronger experts / jury consultant | Counsel should have hired additional or stronger mental-health experts and a jury consultant | Choice of experts is strategic; retained a qualified forensic expert who reviewed records; speculative that additional experts would change outcome | No breach of duty in expert selection; postconviction testimony showed additional experts would not likely have changed verdict |
| Prosecutorial misconduct re: 911 call and related cross-exam | Prosecutor misrepresented or suppressed 911 evidence; counsel ineffective for not objecting | Prosecutor’s cross was fair based on direct testimony; records corroborated calls; questioning proper impeachment and timing issues | No prosecutorial misconduct shown; counsel not ineffective for failing to object |
| Merger / consecutive sentences | Willful injury should merge with attempted murder; consecutive sentences violate Double Jeopardy | Precedent (Clarke) holds willful injury is not a lesser-included offense of attempted murder | Court follows Clarke and related appellate authority; offenses do not merge; consecutive sentences affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing deficient performance and prejudice framework for ineffective assistance)
- Luis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1083 (pretrial freezing of untainted assets may violate Sixth Amendment right to counsel)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (erroneous deprivation of counsel of choice is structural error)
- State ex rel. Pillers v. Maniccia, 343 N.W.2d 834 (Iowa 1984) (disapproving pretrial injunctive freezing of defendant property that impairs defense)
- State v. Krogmann, 804 N.W.2d 518 (Iowa 2011) (direct-appeal opinion addressing the asset freeze and preserved-error issues)
- Lado v. State, 804 N.W.2d 248 (Iowa 2011) (discussing structural error and when prejudice may be presumed)
- State v. Dahl, 874 N.W.2d 348 (Iowa 2016) (protocol for defense expense applications to protect strategy/work product)