# State v. Tate

> Supreme Court of Iowa · February 24, 2006 · 710 N.W.2d 237

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676271

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Randolph Louis TATE, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Iowa
- **Decided:** February 24, 2006
- **Citations:** 710 N.W.2d 237; 2006 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 26; 2006 WL 432194
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Lavorato
- **Judges:** Streit, Lavorato, Wiggins
- **Cited by:** 150 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676271

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that “‘conclusory claims of prejudice’ are not sufficient to satisfy the prejudice element” (citation omitted)
- noting that concerns about the attorney–client privilege “disappear[] during postconviction relief proceedings”
- holding conclusory claims of prejudice are insufficient to satisfy the prejudice component of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
- finding the record inadequate to address the defendant’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on direct appeal

## Opinion text

LAVORATO, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I join Justice Wiggins’ dissent. I would also point out that this case underscores another reason, in addition to the reasons I stated in my dissent in State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128, 138-45 (Iowa 2006) (Lavo-rato, C.J., dissenting), why we should presume prejudice, vacate the judgment of sentence and conviction, and remand to allow the defendant to plead anew. Under the majority’s approach, a postconviction *242 relief proceeding in cases like this one will now likely degenerate into a credibility contest between the lawyer and his or her former client, a contest the former client will' in all likelihood lose. We should not put lawyers and defendants in this unenviable 'position. Such unseemly conflict would be unnecessary, and district court performance would be improved, if we simply enforced Iowa Rule of Criminal Proce-duie 2.8(2)(b)’s requirements.
WIGGINS, J., joins this dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676271. Public record. Not legal advice.