Robert Krogmann v. State of Iowa, 914 N.W.2d 293

In March 2009 Robert Krogmann shot his ex‑girlfriend; he was charged with attempted murder and willful injury and held on a cash‑only bond of $750,000 (later raised to $1,000,000).
The county attorney filed a one‑page application (no legal authority cited) to freeze all of Krogmann’s assets; the district court granted the total freeze without a hearing.
Krogmann had substantial assets (over $3 million, mostly farmland); the freeze required court approval for any sale or transfer and constrained his conservator’s disbursements.
The freeze impeded specific defense‑related actions: prevented posting cash bond (effectively keeping him jailed), limited funds for jail phone calls, and blocked payment for a jury consultant (probate court denied that request);
Trial proceeded while Krogmann was jailed; his defense was diminished responsibility due to bipolar disorder. He was convicted; direct appeal declined to reach the freeze issue as unpreserved but noted concerns about the freeze.
On postconviction review the court found counsel breached duties by not litigating the freeze earlier but denied relief for lack of prejudice; the Iowa Supreme Court ultimately held the freeze unlawful, counsel ineffective for failing to contest it, and that the violation constituted structural error requiring a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Lawfulness of asset freeze	Freeze was unlawful under Maniccia and civil injunction rules; state cited no authority	State effectively abandoned defending the freeze on the merits	Freeze was unlawful under Iowa law (Maniccia and applicable rules)
Ineffective assistance for failing to litigate freeze	Counsel breached duty by not securing a hearing or preserving the issue; breach prejudiced ability to control defense	State: court‑approval process provided sufficient access; no prejudice shown	Counsel breached essential duty; failure to challenge was deficient
Prejudice / structural error	Freeze deprived Krogmann of autonomy to fund defense (bail, jury consultant, experts); prejudice need not be shown (structural error)	State: Strickland prejudice standard applies; denial of a jury consultant is not structural; counsel still performed actively	Court held the asset freeze impaired defendant’s autonomy and was structural error; prejudice presumed and new trial ordered
Consecutive sentences / merger	Willful injury merges into attempted murder under facts	State: willful injury is not a lesser‑included offense of attempted murder under legal‑elements test	Court rejected merger argument and affirmed that willful injury is not a lesser included offense (Clarke remains good law)

State v. Maniccia, 343 N.W.2d 834 (Iowa 1984) (courts lack power to enjoin defendants from disposing of property in advance of restitution where it impairs defense)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑pronged ineffective assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (circumstances where prejudice is presumed; structural error doctrine)
United States v. Gonzalez‑Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (denial of choice of retained counsel is structural; no prejudice showing required)
Luis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1083 (2016) (pretrial restraint of untainted assets needed to retain counsel of choice violates Sixth Amendment)
Caplin & Drysdale v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989) (upholding statutory pretrial forfeiture of tainted assets and explaining limits on right to counsel of choice)
United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008) (government interference with defendants’ access to resources to mount defense infringes Sixth Amendment; remedy may be dismissal)
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (bail’s primary function is to assure presence and protect the court’s role in adjudicating guilt or innocence)
Lado v. State, 804 N.W.2d 248 (Iowa 2011) (examples and limits of structural error in Iowa)