Scott Allan Mason, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 16-1047

Background

In 2008 Mason was tried on assault with a dangerous weapon and second-offense stalking; acquitted of assault but convicted of stalking and sentenced up to five years. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
The stalking conviction rested on a long alleged course of conduct (1996–2008) that the victim testified caused fear of death or injury. This Court previously found substantial evidence supported the stalking conviction.
In 2014 Mason filed for postconviction relief (PCR), amended in 2015; a 2016 evidentiary PCR hearing was held.
Mason claimed trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to call any defense witnesses who, Mason says, would have rebutted the victim, and (2) preventing or failing to allow Mason to testify.
At the PCR hearing, trial counsel testified to a strategy of presenting no affirmative defense because the State’s case was weak, he attempted but could not locate helpful witnesses, and he advised Mason not to testify due to temperament and mental-health concerns.
The PCR court denied relief; on appeal the Court of Appeals reviewed ineffective-assistance claims de novo and affirmed denial, finding Mason failed to prove breach or prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not calling defense witnesses	Mason: counsel promised to call witnesses who would show Mason was the true victim and would have undermined the State’s case	State: counsel testified he tried to locate witnesses but found none helpful; strategy was to attack credibility rather than present witnesses	Court: No ineffective assistance—Mason offered no affidavits or specifics about proposed testimony; counsel’s strategic decision and lack of evidence of prejudice dispositive
Whether counsel was ineffective for not allowing Mason to testify	Mason: he expected to testify and was prevented or advised against testifying	State: counsel balanced risks, believed Mason’s testimony would be harmful given temperament and mental-health issues; Mason did not demand to testify on record	Court: No ineffective assistance—trial counsel reasonably advised against testimony; Mason’s post-hoc, vague assertions insufficient to show breach or prejudice
Whether Mason preserved appellate error regarding these claims	Mason: asserted error preserved by notice of appeal	State: filing a notice of appeal does not preserve error; preservation requires raising issues in the trial court record	Court: Although filing a notice of appeal does not preserve error, the State conceded these issues were preserved and the court addressed them on the merits
Whether Mason proved prejudice from counsel’s failures	Mason: alleged witnesses and his testimony would have changed outcome	State: no evidence offered showing what witnesses would say or how it would alter verdict	Court: No prejudice shown—Mason failed to present supporting affidavits or specifics, so the PCR claim fails

Key Cases Cited

More v. State, 880 N.W.2d 487 (Iowa 2016) (standard of de novo review for ineffective-assistance claims)
Nguyen v. State, 878 N.W.2d 744 (Iowa 2016) (de novo review of ineffective-assistance claims)
Rhoades v. State, 848 N.W.2d 22 (Iowa 2014) (two-pronged ineffective-assistance test)
Schlitter v. State, 881 N.W.2d 380 (Iowa 2016) (ineffective-assistance framework)
King v. State, 797 N.W.2d 565 (Iowa 2011) (burden on applicant to show inadequate representation)
Dunbar v. State, 515 N.W.2d 12 (Iowa 1994) (must state what investigation would have revealed)
Nichol v. State, 309 N.W.2d 468 (Iowa 1981) (complaints about failure to call witnesses require showing their testimony would have been beneficial)
Nims v. State, 401 N.W.2d 231 (Iowa Ct. App. 1986) (same principle on witness nonproduction)
State v. Lange, 831 N.W.2d 844 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013) (filing notice of appeal does not preserve error)
Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856 (Iowa 2012) (appellate briefing must show where issue was raised and decided)