Victor Lawrence Pelletier, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa
16-1072
| Iowa Ct. App. | Mar 8, 2017Background
- Victor Pelletier was convicted of third-degree sexual abuse for allegedly placing his mouth on 12-year-old C.H.’s penis while babysitting; C.H. fled to a neighbor in the early morning claiming he had been raped.
- Neighbor and neighbor’s mother testified about C.H.’s distressed state when he arrived at their home; C.H. gave detailed testimony describing the assault and flight when Pelletier went to the bathroom.
- Forensic testing detected amylase (saliva) on the inside of C.H.’s underwear; a mixed DNA profile was consistent with Pelletier and, according to the analyst, the likelihood another person would share that profile was very small.
- Pelletier denied the abuse, claiming he and C.H. slept and that C.H. might have been dreaming or fabricating; he admitted he and the child had slept on the couch and that C.H. left while Pelletier was in the bathroom.
- Pelletier sought postconviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel for failing to amend his pro se application and failing to present evidence supporting claims against trial and appellate counsel.
- The district court denied relief; Pelletier appealed, arguing postconviction counsel’s ineffectiveness. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was postconviction counsel ineffective for failing to amend the pro se PCR application and present evidence to support claims of trial/appellate counsel ineffectiveness? | Pelletier: counsel should have amended his pro se application and introduced evidence to support unspecified claims of prior counsel’s ineffectiveness. | State: Pelletier failed to specify what amendments or evidence were required, identify the claims, or show prejudice; claims are waived or not preserved. | Affirmed — claim fails for lack of specificity and, alternatively, lack of prejudice given overwhelming evidence of guilt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunbar v. State, 515 N.W.2d 12 (Iowa 1994) (sets Strickland-based standard for ineffective-assistance claims in postconviction context)
- United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955 (7th Cir. 1991) (courts will not hunt for issues or arguments not plainly raised by a party)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test requiring deficient performance and prejudice for ineffective-assistance claims)