State of Iowa v. Cornelius Gully, 19-1624

Defendant Cornelius Gully was convicted by a jury of first-degree burglary for breaking into his ex-girlfriend’s home and assaulting her.
At trial the prosecutor played a phone call in which Gully asked the victim to drop charges and said she “deserved it.”
The court gave a jury instruction allowing jurors to consider Gully’s prior statements “as if they had been made at this trial.” Defense counsel did not object to the instruction.
After sentencing, the Iowa Supreme Court decided State v. Shorter, holding a nearly identical instruction was a misstatement of law.
Gully appealed arguing trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object; the State conceded the instruction was wrong but contended the appellate court lacks authority to resolve ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal under Iowa Code § 814.7.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, citing the statutory bar requiring ineffective-assistance claims be raised in postconviction relief proceedings and the Iowa Supreme Court’s rejection of Gully’s constitutional and plain-error arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate courts may decide an ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal when counsel failed to object to an erroneous jury instruction	§ 814.7 removes appellate authority to resolve such claims on direct appeal; claim must proceed via postconviction relief	Counsel was ineffective for failing to object to an instruction that misstated the law (per Shorter)	Court lacks authority on direct appeal; claim must be raised in postconviction relief
Whether § 814.7 violates separation of powers, limits appellate jurisdiction, or infringes right to counsel	Statute limits appellate authority to decide claims on direct appeal but does not divest jurisdiction; constitutional challenges fail under precedent	§ 814.7 unlawfully restricts appellate review and violates the right to effective counsel	Court rejects constitutional challenges; Supreme Court precedent (Tucker, Jordan, Treptow) forecloses these arguments
Whether plain-error review permits reversal despite § 814.7	Plain-error relief is not available to circumvent the statutory bar	If direct review is barred, court should still correct plain error that affects substantial rights	Plain-error fallback rejected by Iowa Supreme Court; not a basis to decide ineffective-assistance on direct appeal

State v. Shorter, 945 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2020) (held a substantially similar jury instruction misstated the law)
State v. Tucker, 959 N.W.2d 140 (Iowa 2021) (held § 814.7 limits appellate authority to resolve ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)
State v. Jordan, 959 N.W.2d 395 (Iowa 2021) (clarified amended § 814.7 limits authority, not jurisdiction, of appellate courts)
State v. Treptow, 960 N.W.2d 98 (Iowa 2021) (rejected right-to-counsel and plain-error arguments to evade § 814.7)