Somvang Meksavanh, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa
16-0096
| Iowa Ct. App. | May 17, 2017Background
- Somvang Meksavanh was convicted in 2011 of possession of >5 grams of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and failure to affix a drug tax stamp; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
- On direct appeal ineffective-assistance claims were preserved for postconviction relief (PCR); Meksavanh later filed PCR applications challenging trial counsel’s effectiveness.
- At the 2015 PCR hearing the district court denied relief, finding counsel effective; Meksavanh appealed that denial.
- Two principal ineffective-assistance claims: (1) counsel allowed stipulation to prior 1997 convictions without investigating whether Meksavanh understood those pleas (language/competency issue); (2) counsel failed to advise him of immigration/deportation consequences during plea negotiations and failed to secure an interpreter.
- The court analyzed claims under Iowa’s two-part ineffective-assistance test (duty + prejudice) and considered statute-of-limitations constraints on challenging the 1997 convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not investigating prior 1997 convictions before stipulation | Meksavanh: counsel should have investigated whether he understood his earlier guilty pleas given limited English skills | State: the 1997 convictions were final and beyond PCR limitations; Meksavanh never disputed identity or counsel in those cases, so no duty to investigate | Held: No ineffective assistance — no duty or prejudice; further investigation would not have avoided enhanced sentence |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise about immigration consequences of plea offers | Meksavanh: was not advised of deportation consequences during plea negotiations and thus could not meaningfully evaluate offers | State: Meksavanh rejected the plea offer and proceeded to trial, so any failure to advise could not have caused prejudice | Held: No ineffective assistance — no prejudice because he did not accept a plea |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not providing/interpreting during plea negotiations | Meksavanh: should have had an interpreter due to limited English and complex immigration issues | State: trial counsel testified communication in English was adequate; Meksavanh never requested interpreter or showed inability to understand | Held: No ineffective assistance — record shows no communication problem and no evidence interpreter was necessary |
| Whether counsel should have advised acceptance of a plea | Meksavanh: counsel failed to urge acceptance of plea, which would have avoided immigration consequences | State: no record of plea negotiations or a statement from Meksavanh that he would have pled; prejudice not shown | Held: No ineffective assistance — no evidence the outcome would have been different |
Key Cases Cited
- More v. State, 880 N.W.2d 487 (Iowa 2016) (standard of review for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Nguyen v. State, 878 N.W.2d 744 (Iowa 2016) (statute-of-limitations and preservation for PCR; ineffective-assistance considerations)
- Rhoades v. State, 848 N.W.2d 22 (Iowa 2014) (two-part test for ineffective assistance: duty and prejudice)
- McBride v. State, 625 N.W.2d 372 (Iowa Ct. App. 2001) (no duty to investigate undisputed prior convictions)
- Millam v. State, 745 N.W.2d 719 (Iowa 2008) (counsel need not raise meritless issues)
- Dempsey v. State, 860 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 2015) (prejudice in plea-context requires showing plea outcome would have been different)