Opinion
No. 3-729 / 02-1678
Filed October 15, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, David H. Sivright, Jr., Judge.
The defendant appeals from his conviction for first-degree robbery. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Dennis Hendrickson, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Wolf, County Attorney, and Gary Strausser, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
It is undisputed that Vance Davis, Sr. robbed a Casey's convenience store in Clinton, Iowa on April 24, 2002. Following trial, a jury convicted Davis of first-degree robbery. However, Davis contends the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. He claims he was compelled to commit the robbery. We review this claim for errors at law. State v. Cashen, 666 N.W.2d 566, 569 (Iowa 2003). He also contends his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to present the defense of diminished responsibility. We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. State v. Heuser, 661 N.W.2d 157, 166 (Iowa 2003).
Davis contends judgment of acquittal was warranted because the State failed to disprove his defense of compulsion. However, the evidence shows Davis's defense was refuted. Davis testified that he was taken to the store by three other men, and was ordered at gunpoint to rob the store or be killed. However, his version of events was not corroborated by the other evidence presented at trial. Instead, testimony regarding the various different stories Davis provided to the police about the events of April 24th was presented. He told at least five different versions of the events, ranging from a denial of any involvement to being forced to commit the robbery. When viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence is sufficient for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt Davis committed first-degree robbery. See State v. Lambert, 612 N.W.2d 810, 813 (Iowa 2000). Furthermore, the compulsion defense is only applicable in situations where a defendant has no opportunity to avoid danger. State v. Walton, 311 N.W.2d 113, 115 (Iowa 1981). Even if the jury accepted Davis's last version of the events, he entered the store without the other three men and had ample opportunity to abort the robbery and flee or call the police. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Davis's motion for judgment of acquittal.
Davis also contends his counsel was ineffective in failing to present a defense of diminished responsibility because he had smoked crack and "freaked out" that day. To establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim a defendant must show (1) counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and (2) prejudice resulted there-from. Wemark v. State, 602 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1999). The State asserts Davis's counsel did not fail to perform an essential duty because (1) there was conflicting testimony as to whether Davis had ingested drugs, (2) his demeanor at the time of the robbery indicated he was able to form specific intent, and (3) it was strategic to abandon the diminished responsibility defense because it would substantially weaken Davis's compulsion defense. The State further contends Davis was not prejudiced from counsel's failure because the result would have remained the same. The robbery victim testified Davis appeared self-assured, and another witness testified Davis was walking normally when he exited Casey's. Based on the totality of the evidence, including a videotape of the robbery, we conclude the result of the trial would have remained the same had Davis presented a diminished responsibility defense. Because Davis has failed to show he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to present such a defense, we decline to preserve his claim for postconviction relief.