Wendell K. Harrington, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa
14-2101
| Iowa Ct. App. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- Harrington was charged in 2003 with multiple burglary/theft counts; after a 2003 jury conviction the case was reversed and remanded for a new trial.
- Before the retrial, Harrington filed pro se pretrial motions including a motion to suppress challenging a search-warrant affidavit (a Franks claim) and a speedy-trial dismissal; remand counsel said he would argue those motions but was not ready to try the case on the scheduled date.
- The court continued the trial for good cause; days later Harrington pled guilty (two counts) pursuant to a plea agreement, waiving pending motions; he received suspended/consecutive terms and probation, which was later revoked.
- Harrington filed multiple PCR actions; this appeal arises from denial of his second PCR filed in 2012, asserting ineffective assistance by: (1) original trial counsel and remand counsel for failing to obtain a Franks hearing and for not moving to dismiss for speedy-trial violation, and (2) PCR counsel for failing to present remand counsel’s testimony and additional claims.
- The PCR court dismissed the second PCR; on appeal the court reviewed ineffective-assistance claims de novo under Strickland and concluded none of Harrington’s counsel (trial, remand, PCR) were ineffective.
Issues
| Issue | Harrington's Argument | State/Defense Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to obtain Franks hearing to suppress warrant-based evidence | Warrants contained deliberate misstatements (residence was his primary residence; he was observed leaving) meriting a Franks hearing | Affiant had reasonable basis (observed stolen car, intelligence) and statements were not deliberately false or recklessly made | No ineffective assistance — Franks claim lacked merit; counsel not required to pursue it |
| Failure to move to dismiss for speedy-trial violation before plea | Remand counsel failed to obtain dismissal; plea therefore was not voluntary/intelligent; PCR counsel ineffective for not litigating this | Remand counsel sought continuance for good cause (plea negotiations, unpreparedness); Harrington knowingly waived pending motions at plea colloquy | No ineffective assistance — waiver was knowing; good-cause continuance supported; plea voluntary |
| PCR counsel’s failure to obtain remand counsel’s testimony/evidence for Franks claim | PCR counsel should have secured remand counsel testimony to support ineffectiveness and sought limited remand | Additional evidence would not change outcome because Franks claim lacked merit and other evidence supported convictions | No ineffective assistance — no prejudice and no structural error |
| Structural-error claim based on counsel failures | Counsel’s cumulative failures deprived Harrington of meaningful representation, warranting presumed prejudice | Counsel acted competently (argued viable claims, negotiated plea, amended PCR pleadings); not the severe neglect seen in precedents | No structural error; representation not completely denied or ineffective at a crucial stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (standard for attacking veracity of affidavit supporting search warrant)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Carroll, 767 N.W.2d 638 (Iowa 2009) (claim that plea was involuntary due to incompetent advice can survive plea waiver)
- State v. Utter, 803 N.W.2d 647 (Iowa 2011) (counsel must ensure speedy-trial rights under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.33)