Gary Lee Alexander v. State of Iowa

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 17-0390 Filed February 19, 2020 GARY LEE ALEXANDER, Applicant-Appellant, vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Joel Dalrymple, Judge. Gary Alexander appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED. Andrew Dunn of Parrish Kruidenier Dunn Boles Gribble Gentry Brown & Bergmann L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellant. Gary Alexander, Coralville, pro se. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ. 2 MULLINS, Judge. Gary Alexander appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR) following his conviction of one count of second-degree sexual abuse and two counts of third-degree sexual abuse. He challenges the district court’s conclusion he is not entitled to relief upon his claim his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in: (1) not moving to suppress his statements to law enforcement on the grounds (a) he was not allowed his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 10 of the Iowa Constitution because he was “the accused” in a “criminal prosecution,” (b) he was not allowed his right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 9 of the Iowa Constitution despite being subjected to a custodial interrogation and not being advised of his Miranda rights, and (c) his statements were involuntary as elicited with promises of leniency; (2) misinforming him concerning the consequences of his decision to testify at trial; (3) failing to object to allegedly improper vouching testimony regarding the victim’s credibility at trial; and (4) “blunder[ing]” the trial information and jury instructions in relation to the dual counts of third-degree sexual abuse.1 He also argues the 1 Arguments one and three are raised by appellate counsel and pro se, argument two is forwarded solely by appellate counsel, and argument four is raised pro se. While recently enacted legislation forecloses our ability to consider pro se documents, see 2019 Iowa Acts ch. 140, §§ 30(1), 35(1) (codified at Iowa Code §§ 814.6A(1), 822.3B(1) (2019)), we have concluded the legislation does not apply to pro se materials filed before its effective date, July 1, 2019. See, e.g., State v. Banks, No. 18-1337, 2020 WL 110297, at *2 n.2 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020); Wright v. State, No. 17-1904, 2020 WL 109559, at *3 n.5 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020); Campbell v. State, No. 18-1052, 2020 WL 105086, at *1 n.1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020); State v. Banks, No. 18-0721, 2020 WL 105078, at *1 n.1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020); State v. O’Connor, No. 18-0376, 2020 WL 109509, at *3 n.1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2020); State v. Syperda, No. 18-1471, 2019 WL 6893791, 3 cumulative effect of trial counsel’s alleged errors resulted in prejudice. He finally argues PCR counsel rendered ineffective assistance “in failing to properly present the underlying claims …Original document