Joshua Kelly Uranga
v.
State of Iowa
Appellant
Joshua Kelly Uranga
Appellee
State of Iowa
Attorney for the Appellant
Sara Pasquale
Attorney for the Appellee
Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney General
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Christopher C. Polking, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Buller, J. Dissent by Langholz, J. (22 pages)
An applicant appeals the district court’s summary dismissal of his first application for postconviction relief, arguing that his postconviction-relief counsel was ineffective. OPINION HOLDS: Limiting our review to the claim actually briefed, and finding Uranga did not prove counsel was ineffective, we affirm. DISSENT ASSERTS: If Iowa’s statutory right to counsel in postconviction-relief proceedings still guarantees that court-appointed counsel will assist—rather than abandon—their clients, that right was violated here. The majority’s contrary conclusion runs afoul of governing precedent and the underlying principles of fundamental fairness. Because abandoning Uranga without a voice in the court’s summary disposition of his claims could never be an ethical strategy, we do not need any more evidence to find that Uranga’s counsel breached an essential duty. Since this conduct left Uranga constructively without counsel at a crucial stage of the postconviction-relief proceeding and thus rendered the entire proceeding presumptively unreliable, Uranga is entitled to reversal without proving any further prejudice. And Uranga presents this ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in his briefing to us—so we should not avoid following the governing law based on a hyper-technical reading of his arguments. I would thus reverse and remand for further proceedings with the effective assistance of counsel to which Uranga is entitled.
