Opinion
No. 2-600 / 01-2024.
Filed August 14, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, E. RICHARD MEADOWS, Jr., Judge.
Defendant appeals the judgment and sentence entered following a jury trial and a verdict of guilty on three counts of third-degree sexual abuse. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Robert Ranschau, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Cristen Odell, Assistant Attorney General, and Michael Mahaffey, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by HECHT, P.J. and VAITHESWARAN and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Kenneth Eaton, Jr. appeals the judgment and sentence entered following a jury trial and a verdict of guilty on three counts of third-degree sexual abuse. He contends his counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to file a motion pursuant to Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.412, and the court erred in failing to give adequate reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. We review de novo claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Carter, 602 N.W.2d 818, 820 (Iowa 1999). We review the court's sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion. State v. Laffey, 600 N.W.2d 57, 62 (Iowa 1999).
Eaton was thirty and his victim was fourteen when these offenses occurred. Eaton claims his attorney should have filed a motion to permit him to ask the victim about her sexual history. At the time the abuse was discovered, the victim had sexual injuries no more than several days old. The victim had been sexually assaulted several years in the past by another perpetrator.
To succeed with a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Eaton must prove counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and he was prejudiced by counsel's error. See State v. McBride, 625 N.W.2d 372, 373 (Iowa Ct.App. 2001). We find he has failed to prove the second prong of this test, as evidence of his guilt was overwhelming. Eaton had confessed his crimes to a friend who testified at trial. The victim testified Eaton had perpetrated the abuse. The physical evidence admitted at trial was consistent with this testimony. It is not likely that testimony regarding any abuse perpetrated many years prior to the incidents for which Eaton was charged would likely have changed the outcome of the trial.
Eaton was sentenced for three convictions. Two offenses occurred near in time to each other, and the sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. The sentence on the other count is to be served consecutive to the other two. We find the district court stated sufficiently its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. The court noted Eaton's criminal history and the nature of the crime. The court stated it was imposing its sentence to provide the maximum opportunity for Eaton's rehabilitation while protecting the community from further offenses. We find the district court did not abuse its discretion.
AFFIRMED.