State of Iowa v. Gatluak Bol, 16-0370

Victim L.H., a night-shift worker at a meat-packing plant, was led by coworker Gatluak Bol into a basement where he assaulted her, attempted oral sex, and thereafter sexually penetrated her; she immediately reported the incident.
Physical evidence included a broken light bulb, a removed tampon, and Bol’s DNA on L.H.’s underwear and on vaginal, inner-thigh, and anal swabs.
Bol testified the encounter was consensual and that L.H. had solicited sex for money; the jury disbelieved him and convicted on (1) sexual abuse in the third degree (vaginal penetration) and (2) assault with intent to commit sexual abuse (attempted oral sex).
At sentencing the court orally announced that fines and surcharges would be suspended, but the written judgment imposed fines and surcharges; the State concedes the written order conflicts with the oral pronouncement.
On appeal Bol argues ineffective assistance for not objecting to the assault-with-intent jury instruction, challenges the written sentencing entry, and in a pro se brief contests sufficiency of evidence and constitutionality of special sentencing.
The appellate court affirms convictions, denies ineffective-assistance and pro se claims, but remands for a nunc pro tunc order correcting the written sentencing entry to reflect suspended fines/surcharges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of assault-with-intent jury instruction	Instruction adequately stated elements and was legally sufficient	Counsel should have objected: instruction misstated assault mens rea and failed to specify intended sex act	Instruction read with preliminary instructions and closing arguments adequately conveyed elements; no ineffective assistance; conviction affirmed
Whether instruction misstates assault mens rea	State: wording ("meant") conveys required specific purpose/mens rea	Bol: instruction omitted phrase "specific intent" and substituted "meant" for "intended to"	Court: phrasing acceptable; substance mattered more than label; no prejudice
Whether instruction omitted definition of sexual act	State: other instructions and prosecutor’s closing identified the alleged oral sex act	Bol: marshalling instruction did not specify the sex act intended	Court: instructions read together and record made clear the intended act; no error
Sentencing discrepancy between oral pronouncement and written judgment	State: concedes clerical error; oral pronouncement controls	Bol: written order imposes fines contrary to oral suspension	Court: oral sentence governs; remand for nunc pro tunc order to correct written judgment

Ambrose v. State, 861 N.W.2d 550 (Iowa 2015) (standard of review for ineffective-assistance claims)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance analysis)
Bedard v. State, 668 N.W.2d 598 (Iowa 2003) (assault requires proof of specific intent)
Heard v. State, 636 N.W.2d 227 (Iowa 2001) (same: assault mens rea is specific intent)
Liggins v. State, 557 N.W.2d 263 (Iowa 1996) (trial court may phrase instructions in own words if law and issues are fully and fairly stated)
Keeton v. State, 710 N.W.2d 531 (Iowa 2006) (labels less important than proving required mens rea)
Scalise v. State, 660 N.W.2d 58 (Iowa 2003) (instructions should be read together, not in isolation)
Smothers v. State, 590 N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 1999) (counsel has no duty to advance meritless objections)
Dempsey v. State, 860 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 2015) (ineffective-assistance elements explained; failure on one prong obviates need to reach the other)
Hess v. State, 533 N.W.2d 525 (Iowa 1995) (oral pronouncement of sentence controls over conflicting written judgment)