Opinion
No. 2-723 / 01-1244
Filed October 16, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark J. Smith, Judge.
Appeal from denial of postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
Thomas Preacher, Bettendorf, for appellant.
James Epps, Fort Madison, pro se.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha Boesen, Assistant Attorney General, William Davis, County Attorney, and Donald Frank, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Hayden, Harris, and Snell, Senior Judges.
Senior Judges assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2001).
The district court was correct in denying postconviction relief to James Wesley Epps, Sr. Epps was convicted of possession with intent to deliver crack cocaine, class "C" felony under Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(c) (1999). Because Epps admitted a prior such conviction, his sentence was enhanced to a thirty-year term under Iowa Code section 124.441(1). We affirmed that conviction on direct appeal. State v. Epps, No. 98-0268 (Iowa Ct.App. Jan. 27, 1997). In that decision we reserved the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which was the subject of this postconviction proceeding. Epps also claims his appellate counsel on direct appeal was ineffective. The State concedes these issues are preserved for our review.
Epps contends his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to adequately investigate the charges against him. He argues that, with an adequate investigation, trial counsel would not have been surprised by an officer's testimony that Epps had been involved in a prior controlled buy at a different residence, testimony Epps considers hearsay and unduly prejudicial. The State correctly contends that, to any extent counsel could have benefited from any knowledge of the controlled buy, Epps suffers from a self-inflicted wound. Epps did not inform counsel of the incident and counsel thus had no reason to look into it. Epps's conduct in withholding the information is a vital factor in evaluating his counsel's performance. Attorneys for persons accused of crimes are not required to independently investigate whether their clients have been candid and complete in relating the facts of the case. State v. Rice, 543 N.W.2d 884, 888-89 (Iowa 1996).
The facts do not support Epps's contention that his counsel on direct appeal was ineffective. He argues his appellate counsel should have been more vigorous in arguing the prejudicial prong of ineffectiveness. But appellate counsel's arguments were successful. Four of five of the ineffectiveness claims were preserved for this review. The fifth, the one rejected on direct appeal, was transparently without merit.
Epps has filed a pro se brief, asserting prosecutorial misconduct. Discussion of this issue would add nothing of precedential value. We review such contentions for an abuse of discretion. State v. Thornton, 598 N.W.2d 670, 676 (Iowa 1993). There was no abuse here.