STATE OF IOWA vs. ALLEN LEROY HUENEFELD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 07–0602
Filed July 9, 2010
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
ALLEN LEROY HUENEFELD,
Appellant.
On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Amanda P.
Potterfield, Judge.
Defendant seeks further review of court of appeals’ decision
holding the district court did not err in admitting testimony that
defendant claimed was prejudicial and determining certain claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel were preserved and others were not
preserved for postconviction review.
APPEALS
VACATED
IN
PART;
DECISION OF COURT OF
DISTRICT
COURT
JUDGMENT
AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Patricia A. Reynolds,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas W. Andrews,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
2
PER CURIAM.
This matter comes to us on further review of the court of appeals’
decision in an appeal by appellant, Allen Huenefeld, of his conviction of
sexual abuse in the second degree. The court of appeals held the district
court’s admission of certain testimony did not prejudice Huenefeld. In
addition, the court of appeals preserved some of Huenefeld’s ineffectiveassistance-of-counsel claims for postconviction review, but refused to
preserve other ineffective-assistance claims raised by the defendant,
concluding the defendant had not made an adequate record on those
claims. We have taken the case on further review to evaluate whether
Huenefeld is required to establish a record on direct appeal to preserve
his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims for postconviction review. 1
See State v. Doggett, 687 N.W.2d 97, 99 (Iowa 2004) (declining to exercise
discretion on further review to consider all issues raised on appeal,
deciding instead to consider only the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
claim).
In an opinion we filed today, State v. Johnson, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___
(Iowa 2010), we held that, under Iowa Code section 814.7 (2007), a
defendant need not establish any record on direct appeal to preserve an
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim for postconviction review.
We
stated:
Based on the provisions of section 814.7, we hold defendants
are no longer required to raise ineffective-assistance claims
on direct appeal, and when they choose to do so, they are
not required to make any particular record in order to
preserve the claim for postconviction relief.
. . . If the defendant requests that the court decide the
claim on direct appeal, it is for the court to determine
whether the record is adequate, and if so, to resolve the
1The
court of appeals’ decision is final as to the other issues raised by the
defendant on appeal. See Everly v. Knoxville Cmty. Sch. Dist., 774 N.W.2d 488, 492
(Iowa 2009).
3
claim. If, however, the court determines the claim cannot be
addressed on appeal, the court must preserve it for a
postconviction-relief proceeding, regardless of the court’s
view of the potential viability of the claim.
Johnson, ___ N.W.2d at ___.
Applying these principles here, we agree with the court of appeals’
assessment that the record is inadequate to decide Huenefeld’s
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.
Therefore, pursuant to our
obligation under section 814.7(3), we preserve all of Huenefeld’s
ineffective-assistance claims for postconviction review, both those raised
by appellate counsel and those raised pro se.
We vacate the court of
appeals’ contrary decision.
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED IN PART;
DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
This is not a published opinion.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
