Travis Leftwich, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 13-1846

In March 2009 Travis Leftwich entered Alford pleas to third-degree sexual abuse and intent to commit sexual abuse causing bodily injury as part of a plea agreement calling for concurrent sentences.
The plea colloquy did not advise Leftwich of the mandatory special sentence under Iowa Code §903B.1 (lifetime commitment to DOC supervision for certain sexual offenders).
At sentencing on April 7, 2009 the court discovered the omission; defense counsel admitted he had not discussed §903B.1 earlier, took a recess, then conferred with Leftwich about the special sentence.
After the recess Leftwich and counsel proceeded with sentencing; Leftwich allocuted and accepted sentencing despite stating he was “not a threat to anybody.”
In March 2012 Leftwich filed a postconviction-relief petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to inform him of §903B.1 before his plea; the district court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing.
The Court of Appeals affirms, holding counsel breached an essential duty but Leftwich failed to show prejudice sufficient to overturn his pleas.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not advising Leftwich of §903B.1 before plea	Leftwich: counsel breached duty by failing to inform him of the special sentence before he entered Alford pleas	State: court failed to advise but counsel later discussed §903B.1 before sentencing and Leftwich proceeded voluntarily	Breach: Yes—counsel failed to correct the court’s omission or move to arrest judgment
Whether Leftwich was prejudiced by counsel’s omission	Leftwich: he would have gone to trial if informed earlier	State: record shows strong evidence of guilt and Leftwich proceeded with plea and sentencing after discussion; bare assertion insufficient	Prejudice: No—Leftwich’s conclusory post hoc claim insufficient; no reasonable probability outcome would differ

Rhoades v. State, 848 N.W.2d 22 (Iowa 2014) (standard of review for ineffective-assistance claims)
Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856 (Iowa 2012) (Strickland framework applied in Iowa)
Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 2001) (prejudice and counsel-performance principles)
Myers v. State, 653 N.W.2d 574 (Iowa 2002) (conclusory claims of prejudice insufficient to overturn plea)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice standard for counsel errors affecting guilty pleas)
State v. Klawonn, 609 N.W.2d 515 (Iowa 2000) (Alford-plea acceptance requires strong record of actual guilt)
State v. Hallock, 765 N.W.2d 598 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (counsel duty to correct court’s failure to advise of special sentencing provisions)
Burgess v. State, 639 N.W.2d 564 (Iowa 2001) (definition and effect of an Alford plea)