Ailes v. StateAiles v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Huitink
Ailes appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his applicаtion for post-convietion relief. We affirm.
I.Background Facts and Proceedings.
Ailes was charged with first-degree burglary and second-degree robbery in April 1994. Prior to trial, the State offered to dismiss the burglary charge in exchange fоr Ailes’ guilty plea to robbery. Ailes’ lawyer wrote Ailes informing him of the Stаte’s terms and probable sentencing consequences of the plea bargain. Counsel told Ailes robbery was a forciblе felony and because he was ineligible for probation оr parole he would serve a maximum of five years.
Ailes rejected the plea bargain and was convicted on both counts. He was sentenced to concurrent twenty-five and ten year terms. Ailes’ direct appeal was dismissed as frivolous pursuant to Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 104.
In this postconviction relief proceeding Ailes’ claimed he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel. He citеs counsel’s admittedly erroneous advice concerning thе sentencing consequences of the plea bargain offered by the State. Although the district court agreed with this contentiоn, postconvietion relief was denied because Ailes fаiled to show he was prejudiced by his lawyer’s erroneous adviсe.
On appeal Ailes renews the argument he advancеd in the district court. The State contends Ailes cannot provе he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s erroneous advice because the record indicates he would not accept any plea bargain including a prison sentence. The Stаte also argues Ailes’ failure to raise this issue on direct aрpeal precludes postconviction relief.
II. Standard of Review.
Ordinarily, our review of postcon-viction relief proceedings is fоr errors of law. Hinkle v. State, 290 N.W.2d 28, 30 (Iowa 1980). However, when a postconviction petitioner asserts violation of constitutional safeguаrds — such as ineffective assistance of counsel — we makе our own evaluation based on the totality of the circumstаnces. This is the equivalent of de novo review. Id.
III. Error Preservation.
Generally, a postconviction relief applicant has the burden to show sufficient reason why a ground for relief was not previously asserted on direct appeal. Bledsoe, v. State, 257 N.W.2d 32, 33-34 (Iowa 1977). This burden, however, doеs not attach following a contested dismissal of an apрlicant‘s direct appeal as frivolous under Iowa Rule Appellate Procedure 104. Munz v. State, 382 N.W.2d 693, 695 (Iowa App.1985); Sta nford v. Iowa State Reformatory, 279 N.W.2d 28, 34 (Iowa 1979). In announcing the latter rulе, the Supreme Court said:
*355 In so ruling, we do not pass upon whether thе burden of proof required by Bledsoe is applicable where, as in Bledsoe, no resistance to the [104] motion was filed.
Stanford v. State Reformatory, 279 N.W.2d at 34.
The record contains no indicаtion Ailes resisted appellate counsel’s motion to dismiss Ailеs’ direct appeal as frivolous. Ailes was given sufficient notiсe of counsel’s intentions and was provided an opportunity to alert appellate counsel to those faсts and circumstances supporting the grounds upon which he now relies for appellate relief. We hold Ailes’ failure to do so precludes postcon-viction relief.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.