Opinion
No. 2-774 / 02-0383
Filed October 16, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Eliza J. Ovrom, Judge.
Edgar Bayles appeals from the district court's denial of his application for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
Patricia Hulting of Roehrick, Hulting, Krull Blumberg, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Richard Bennett, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Michael Hunter, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Mahan, JJ.
Edgar Bayles appeals from the district court's denial of his application for postconviction relief. He claims (1) the court erred in determining his trial counsel was not ineffective, and (2) newly-discovered evidence entitles him to a new trial. We affirm.
I. Background facts and proceedings
In 1994 Bayles was convicted of first-degree kidnapping. The supreme court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. State v. Bayles, 551 N.W.2d 600 (Iowa 1996). In 1999 Bayles filed an application for postconviction relief. At the trial in late 2001 he raised four claims:
1. Trial counsel was ineffective in failing to obtain the victim's medical records and a medical and/or psychiatric evaluation of the victim.
2. The victim's post-trial diagnosis of hypothyroidism constitutes newly-discovered evidence.
3. The trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence of prior bad acts.
4. Trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the prosecutor's cross-examination questions of Bayles, asking him to comment on the credibility of other witnesses.
The court concluded the last two issues were raised and decided on direct appeal. See Bayles, 551 N.W.2d at 604. Concerning issue one, because trial counsel had requested "any and all medical records, and any and all counseling records," which the trial court inspected in camera, and because there was no evidence the victim was suffering from hypothyroidism at the time of trial, the court concluded counsel "was not ineffective in failing to request records of, or request examination for, a condition that had not been diagnosed or did not exist at the time" of trial. The court also concluded there was "absolutely no evidence in the record that suggests [the victim] suffered from this condition at the time she testified at Bayles' trial." Therefore, even if hypothyroidism could affect her credibility, Bayles did not show the victim had hypothyroidism at the time of trial. Based on these conclusions, the court denied the application for postconviction relief. Bayles appeals.
II. Claims on appeal
Bayles claims his discovery the victim suffered from hypothyroidism constitutes newly-discovered evidence entitling him to a new trial. Bayles also claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to obtain medical records that would demonstrate the victim suffered from hypothyroidism, which could affect her behavior, memory, and credibility.
III. Scope of review
Postconviction relief proceedings are civil actions triable at law. We review for errors at law. DeVoss v. State, 648 N.W.2d 56, 60 (Iowa 2002). When the applicant raises a constitutional claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, our review is de novo. Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134, 141 (Iowa 2001). Denial of a claim based on newly-discovered evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
IV. Discussion
A. Newly-discovered evidence. Iowa Code section 822.2(4) allows an application for postconviction relief on the ground there "exists evidence of material facts, not previously presented and heard, that requires vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice." Iowa Code § 822.2(4) (1999). Such claim is treated the same as a claim of newly-discovered evidence on direct appeal. Grissom v. State, 572 N.W.2d 183, 184 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). Motions for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence are looked upon with disfavor and granted sparingly. Whitsel v. State, 525 N.W.2d 860, 863 (Iowa 1994). The new evidence must be material and likely to change the outcome of the case. State v. Edman, 444 N.W.2d 103, 106 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998).
Bayles claims the victim suffers from hypothyroidism. Bayles testified their son, Carlos, told him of the diagnosis in 1999. Based on his reading in a medical textbook, Bayles claims the victim exhibited behavior in 1994 he believes was consistent with symptoms of hypothyroidism. Neither Bayles nor his son have medical training. Primarily, Bayles points to what he claims are contradictions or inconsistencies in the victim's statements. The district court concluded there was "absolutely no evidence" to suggest the victim suffered from the condition at the time of trial. The court also concluded Bayles failed to prove a likelihood the result of the trial would have been different. The court noted the trial record revealed defense counsel "diligently pursued evidence concerning [the victim's] credibility" and "vigorously questioned [her] concerning these alleged inconsistencies." We conclude the district court was correct, and affirm on this issue.
B. Ineffective assistance of counsel. To prevail on this claim, Bayles must demonstrate counsel failed to perform an essential duty and he was prejudiced by this failure. DeVoss, 648 N.W.2d at 64. Trial counsel requested medical and counseling records of the victim. The trial court examined them in camera and held they should not be released. The court did allow defense counsel to question the victim concerning a 1993 suicide attempt. Counsel questioned the alleged inconsistencies Bayles pointed out at trial. Bayles presents only his testimony, based on hearsay, that the victim suffers from hypothyroidism. We find nothing in the record to indicate that, even if she now has the condition, she had it at the time of trial. We find trial counsel did not fail in any essential duty. We also find Bayles has not demonstrated prejudice.
Having concluded the district court did not err in concluding Bayles failed to produce newly-discovered evidence justifying a new trial, and finding trial counsel was not ineffective, we affirm the decision of the district court, denying Bayles's application for postconviction relief.