State v. Ibarra

7 Citing cases

  1. Durr v. State

    No. 2021-CT-01109-SCT (Miss. May. 14, 2024)

    Multiple other jurisdictions have found it appropriate to address this issue on direct appeal. See State v. Ibarra, 829 N.W.2d 190 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013); Perkins v. State, 487 S.E.2d 365 (Ga.Ct.App. 1997); State v. Mark, 231 P.3d 478 (Haw. 2010); State v. Cook, 171 P.3d 1282 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007). ¶8. For these reasons, I disagree with the order dismissing the grant of certiorari review of Durr's ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

  2. State v. McKinley

    860 N.W.2d 874 (Iowa 2015)   Cited 27 times
    Adopting Harlan ’s view and collecting cases

    See Iowa Rs. Prof'l Conduct 32:1.7 and 32:1.10.State v. Ibarra, No. 12–0330, 2013 WL 530558, at *8 (Iowa Ct.App. Feb. 13, 2013) (footnote omitted). The Ibarra court did not address Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct 32:1.11 or survey the decisions from other jurisdictions.

  3. Durr v. State

    385 So. 3d 776 (Miss. Ct. App. 2023)

    Furthermore, this Court, at a minimum, can choose to answer the legal question of whether an individual county’s public defender’s office constitutes a "firm" for purposes of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel—as many other states have done on direct appeal. See, e.g., State v. Ibarra, 829 N.W.2d 190, 2013 WL 530558, at *8 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013) (finding on direct appeal that a conflict exits between public defenders within the same office, although this particular defendant waived any possible conflict on the record); Perkins v. State, 226 Ga.App. 613, 487 S.E.2d 365, 368 (1997) (holding on direct appeal for purposes of ineffective assistance claims "public defenders in the same office are treated as members of a law firm"); State v. Mark, 231 P.3d 478, 518 (Haw. 2010) (declining on direct appeal to impute per se conflicts of interest to lawyers working in the same public defender’s office); State v. Cook, 144 Idaho 784, 171 P.3d 1282, 1292 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007) (holding, on direct appeal, that conflict questions that arise in public defender’s office should be addressed on a "case-by-case basis"). This question needs to be answered irrespective of the individual outcome of this case.

  4. Durr v. State

    No. 2021-KA-01109-COA (Miss. Ct. App. May. 9, 2023)

    Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b) also notes that "[w]here the appellant is represented by counsel who did not represent the appellant at trial, the failure to raise such issues on direct appeal shall constitute a waiver barring consideration of the issues in post-conviction proceedings." ¶62. Furthermore, this Court, at a minimum, can choose to answer the legal question of whether an individual county's public defender's office constitutes a "firm" for purposes of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel-as many other states have done on direct appeal. See, e.g., State v. Ibarra, 829 N.W.2d 190, 2013 WL 530558, at *8 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013) (finding on direct appeal that a conflict exits between public defenders within the same office, although this particular defendant waived any possible conflict on the record); Perkins v. State, 487 S.E.2d 365, 368 (Ga.Ct.App. 1997) (holding on direct appeal for purposes of ineffective assistance claims "public defenders in the same office are treated as members of a law firm"); State v. Mark, 231 P.3d 478, 518 (Haw. 2010) (declining on direct appeal to impute per se conflicts of interest to lawyers working in the same public defender's office); State v. Cook, 171 P.3d 1282, 1292 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007) (holding, on direct appeal, that conflict questions that arise in public defender's office should be addressed on a "case-by-case basis"). This question needs to be answered irrespective of the individual outcome of this case.

  5. State v. Lajeunesse

    No. 17-0507 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2018)

    Ultimately, "[t]he effect of defendant's heavy drinking on formation of the requisite specific intent to kill is for the jury to determine." See State v. Wilkens, 346 N.W.2d 16, 20-21 (Iowa 1984); State v. Ibarra, No. 12-0330, 2013 WL 530558, at *12 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2013). We will not disturb the jury's verdict on this record.

  6. State v. Clark

    883 N.W.2d 536 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    Despite Clark's belief otherwise, the challenged portion of the jury instruction was a correct statement of the law. See State v. Ibarra, No. 12–0330, 2013 WL 530558, at *17 (Iowa Ct.App. Feb. 13, 2013) (explaining that a jury instruction containing nearly identical language about the intoxication defense “correctly informed the jury”). Therefore, he cannot show his counsel was ineffective by failing to object to it.

  7. Ibarra v. State

    872 N.W.2d 410 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015)

    A jury found Ibarra guilty of murder in the first degree, and we affirmed on appeal. State v.Ibarra, No. 12–0330, 2013 WL 530558 (Iowa Ct.App. Feb. 13, 2013). Ibarra's application for postconviction relief (PCR) was denied, and on appeal he asserts his trial counsel was ineffective in two respects.