James Farnsworth II.
v.
State of Iowa
James Farnsworth appeals from the denial of his application for postconviction relief, arguing his criminal trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, among other things, by failing to employ an expert pathologist and not objecting to the prosecutor’s closing argument stating the jury did not need to be unanimous on the issue of justification.
Resister
James Farnsworth II.
Applicant
State of Iowa
Attorney for the Resister
Philip B. Mears
Attorney for the Applicant
Kyle Hanson
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
Non-Oral
Sep 14, 2022 9:00 AM
Briefs
Supreme Court Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Christopher C. Foy, Judge. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ. Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J. (15 pages)
James Farnsworth II appeals the district court’s denial of several ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims raised in his postconviction-relief application following a jury trial conviction of second-degree murder, including: (1) counsel’s failure to retain a forensic pathologist; (2) counsel’s failure to state the standard of proof in closing arguments; (3) counsel’s failure to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence; and (4) several other ineffective-assistance grounds that “cumulatively establish the necessary prejudice,” including counsel’s failure to object to the court’s application of the cash portion to Farnsworth’s restitution obligation. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s denial of all the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims except Farnsworth’s claim that his attorney should have objected to the forfeiture of the $50,000 cash bond. We reverse the district court’s denial of his claim on that ground and remand for return of $50,000 to Farnsworth.