Opinion
No. 06-1728.
September 6, 2007.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Nancy S. Tabor, Judge.
A postconviction relief applicant appeals from the district court's order denying the application. AFFIRMED.
Sherry Williams, Pro Se.
Lauren Phelps, Bettendorf, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Thomas Andrews, Assistant Attorney General, William E. Davis, County Attorney, and Michael J. Walton, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and VOGEL and BAKER, JJ.
[EDITORS' NOTE: THE PUBLICATION STATUS OF THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED. THE PRECEDENTIAL VALUE OF CASES WHICH ARE NOT YET PUBLISHED IS GOVERNED BY IOWA CT. R. 6.14 (5).]
Sherry Williams appeals the district court's dismissal of her application for postconviction relief. On appeal, Williams asserts that her postconviction relief counsel was ineffective and the district court did not properly weigh the testimony given in the postconviction relief hearing. In our de novo review of the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we find that postconviction relief counsel was not ineffective for failing to ask every conceivable question of a witness. See State v. Rice, 543 N.W.2d 884, 888 (Iowa 1996) (counsel is not ineffective for failing to pose specific questions that the defendant would have preferred to be asked). In our abuse of discretion review of the district court's credibility assessment and evaluation of recantation testimony, we find that the district court was well within its discretion. State v. Folck, 325 N.W.2d 368, 377 (Iowa 1982). We affirm pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.29(a) and (e).