noting that “‘conclusory claims of prejudice’ are not sufficient to satisfy the prejudice element” (citation omitted)
How later courts described this case
- 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
- preserving claim for postconviction review and stating that “[o]nly in rare cases will the trial record alone be sufficient to resolve the claim on direct appeal”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WIGGINS, Justice
(dissenting).
The record is unequivocal that at. the time the district court accepted the defendant’s guilty plea, the court failed to advise the defendant that the sentence for voluntary absence .began “at the expiration of any. existing sentence.” Iowa Code § ,901.8 (2003). I believe this failure violated our rule requiring the court to inform the defendant of “[t]he mandatory minimum punishment, if any, and the maximum possible punishment provided by the statute defining the offense to which the plea is offered.” Iowa R.Crim. P. 2.8(2)(b)(2). For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128, 145 (Iowa 2006) (Lavorato, C.J;, dissenting), I would presume prejudice, vacate the judgment of sentence and conviction, and remand the case to the district court. .
LAVORATO, C.J., joins this dissent.