State of Iowa v. Lamont Prince Sr.
16-1455
| Iowa Ct. App. | Aug 16, 2017Background
- Victim A.P., Prince’s daughter, moved in with him at age 11 and later testified Prince engaged her in repeated sexual intercourse (40–50 times) beginning about age 12.
- A.P. disclosed the abuse to peers and a tutor; those witnesses corroborated that A.P. had told them about the abuse years earlier.
- Forensic testing found a mixture of bodily fluids on a sheet containing DNA profiles consistent with Prince and A.P.
- Prince waived a jury, was tried before the district court, and convicted on four counts of third-degree sexual abuse and four counts of incest; the court entered written findings and sentenced him to an effective not-more-than 20-year term.
- On appeal Prince alleged: (1) trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to alleged prosecutorial vouching; (2) the court failed to read its verdict in open court; (3) the court gave insufficient reasons for imposing consecutive sentences; and (4) various pro se claims including insufficiency of the evidence and additional ineffective-assistance claims about unpresented evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutor’s closing comment amounted to improper vouching; counsel should have objected | State defended prosecutor’s argument as permissible inference from evidence | Prince argued prosecutor vouched for A.P.’s credibility and counsel was ineffective for failing to object | Even assuming improper vouching, no prejudice shown in bench trial; counsel not ineffective on this ground |
| Court failed to read verdict in open court as required by Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.17(2) | State argued written findings plus informing defendant of verdict before sentencing cured error | Prince argued noncompliance with rule rendered verdict deficient | Written findings filed and verdicts announced on the record at sentencing cured the infirmity; no reversible error |
| Court failed to state adequate reasons for imposing consecutive sentences (Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.23(3)(d)) | State maintained court gave reasons — harm to victim and betrayal of trust — which supported consecutive terms | Prince contended the explanations were too terse/insufficient | Court’s succinct statement of harm and violation of trust was sufficient; sentencing within discretion |
| Sufficiency of the evidence; pro se ineffective-assistance claims about unpresented evidence | State argued the totality of victim testimony, corroborating statements, and forensic evidence supported convictions | Prince argued evidence was insufficient and counsel ineffective for not presenting subpoenas, medical records, or jail call | Evidence sufficient when viewed for the State; pro se IAC claims not developed for direct appeal and preserved for postconviction relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Maxwell v. State, 743 N.W.2d 185 (Iowa 2008) (standards for resolving ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)
- Thorndike v. State, 860 N.W.2d 316 (Iowa 2015) (de novo review of ineffective-assistance claims)
- Graves v. State, 668 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 2003) (limits on prosecutor vouching; counsel may argue reasonable inferences)
- Phillips v. State, 226 N.W.2d 16 (Iowa 1975) (prosecutor may argue inferences from evidence)
- Matheson v. State, 684 N.W.2d 243 (Iowa 2004) (bench trial factfinder less likely to be swayed by improper remarks)
- Jones v. State, 817 N.W.2d 11 (Iowa 2012) (reading verdict in open court and when written findings may cure defects)
- Evans v. State, 672 N.W.2d 328 (Iowa 2003) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing review)
- Hill v. State, 878 N.W.2d 269 (Iowa 2016) (requirement to state reasons on the record for sentence selection and consecutive terms)
- Hennings v. State, 791 N.W.2d 828 (Iowa 2010) (succinct sentencing rationale can be sufficient)
- Webb v. State, 648 N.W.2d 72 (Iowa 2002) (standard for sufficiency-of-the-evidence review)
- Leckington v. State, 713 N.W.2d 208 (Iowa 2006) (reviewing evidence in light most favorable to the State)
- Casady v. State, 597 N.W.2d 801 (Iowa 1999) (same)
- Johnson v. State, 784 N.W.2d 192 (Iowa 2010) (preserving undeveloped IAC claims for postconviction relief)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test)