Opinion
No. 3-019 / 02-0368.
Filed March 12, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, JOHN D. ACKERMAN, Judge.
Plummer appeals the denial of his motion for a new trial and raises several ineffective assistance of counsel claims. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and David Adams, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Thomas Tauber, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas Mullin, County Attorney, and Drew Bockenstedt, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
Aaron Plummer and a friend kicked and shot their way into a locked apartment of some acquaintances. One of the four occupants was injured by a flying bullet and another was threatened with a gun. The State charged Plummer with various crimes arising from this incident. Ultimately, judgment was entered for first-degree burglary, terrorism with intent, assault causing bodily injury, and reckless use of a firearm. See Iowa Code §§ 713.3, 708.6, 708.2(2) and 724.30(2) (2001).
On appeal, Plummer contends the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for new trial. See State v. O'Shea, 634 N.W.2d 150, 154 (Iowa Ct.App. 2001) (setting forth scope of review). He specifically focuses on discrepancies in the State's evidence relating to a shoeprint on the apartment door and in the eye witness testimony. Plummer also raises several ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
I. Motion for New Trial
In its ruling on the new trial motion, the trial judge stated the shoeprint evidence was "very contested," but noted he "was impressed" by the "overall credibility" of the State's witness. As for the eye witness testimony, the court conceded there were inconsistencies but stated, "[t]o have no inconsistencies would probably be a greater concern to the Court than the fact that there were some." Despite the inconsistencies, the court noted none of the witnesses' identification testimony was "wholly unbelievable or so absurd or impossible or self-contradictory that their testimony would be deemed a nullity." We find no abuse of discretion in the court's ruling.
II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Plummer contends trial counsel was ineffective in failing to: 1) move for mistrial after the State belatedly disclosed exculpatory information, 2) present a meaningful defense, and (3) properly investigate the case. We preserve these ineffective assistance of counsel claims for postconviction relief to allow defense counsel an opportunity to address them. State v. Shortridge, 589 N.W.2d 76, 84 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998).