Opinion
No. 09–1606.
2012-06-13
Jayme Ryan POWELL, Applicant–Appellant, v. STATE of Iowa, Respondent–Appellee.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Duane E. Hoffmeyer, Judge. Jayme Ryan Powell appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED. Harold K. Widdison, Sioux City, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Thomas W. Andrews, Assistant Attorney General, Patrick Jennings, County Attorney, and Mark Campbell, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Duane E. Hoffmeyer, Judge.
Jayme Ryan Powell appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
Harold K. Widdison, Sioux City, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Thomas W. Andrews, Assistant Attorney General, Patrick Jennings, County Attorney, and Mark Campbell, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by EISENHAUER, C.J., and POTTERFIELD and MULLINS, JJ.
MULLINS, J.
In August 2006, a jury found Jayme Ryan Powell guilty of first-degree burglary and second-degree burglary. Powell was sentenced to a term of incarceration not to exceed twenty-five years.
In February 2009, Powell filed an application for postconviction relief arguing his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing: (1) to adequately investigate allegations of blood tampering, (2) in his selection of his theory of defense, (3) to obtain telephone records to prove an alibi, (4) in not requesting a change in venue, (5) to expressly use the word “innocent” in his opening statement or closing arguments, and (6) in his cross-examination of several witness. Powell further claimed his appellate counsel was ineffective for telling him that his claims were best-suited for postconviction relief and for not informing him that he had a right to request further review to the supreme court. After receiving briefing and hearing argument, the district court summarily dismissed Powell's application on September 25, 2009.
Upon our review of the record, we find the district court thoroughly and completely addressed each of the grounds raised on appeal. We agree with the court's well-reasoned findings and therefore affirm pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.29(1)(d) and (e).
AFFIRMED.