Appeals court rejects Oskaloosa man’s drug conviction appeal

Mahaska-County-Courthouse

Mahaska-County-Courthouse

Court preserves ineffective assistance of counsel claim

OSKALOOSA- The Iowa Court of Appeals on Wednesday unanimously rejected an appeal from an Oskaloosa man contending that his drug convictions should be thrown out because of ineffective assistance of counsel and also because his Fourth Amendment rights were violated.

Jamal Clark was convicted of delivery of marijuana and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver by a Mahaska County jury on August 13, 2014 after a two-day trial. Clark was sentenced on February 2, 2015 to a suspended prison term not to exceed five years.

The charges in this case stem from an incident that occurred in October 2013. While assisting a DHS worker at an Oskaloosa apartment building with a home visit on October 2, 2013, Oskaloosa Police Officer Justin Rice recognized an individual from prior involvement with the police go into a neighboring apartment. While leaving the apartment building, Rice noticed a “strong and distinct” smell of burnt marijuana coming from the apartment he had seen the individual enter.

Rice applied for and obtained a search warrant for the apartment, which was executed a couple of days later. At the time the warrant was executed, Clark and another man were in the apartment. Officers discovered more than $2,000 in cash, receipts documenting a $1,300 bank deposit and $1,825 money transfer, as well as two large vacuum sealed bags and other packaging consistent with marijuana sales. Marijuana residue was discovered inside the bags and packaging. The evidence discovered in the warrant was presented at trial, which resulted in Clark’s conviction.

In his appeal, Clark contended that his fourth amendment rights were violated because evidence used by prosecutors at his trial was obtained by the search warrant that was not supported by probable cause. In their ruling, the court rejected Clark’s claim saying the issue should have been first raised in the district court prior to trial as a motion to suppress, rather than bringing the issue up on direct-appeal. Since this did not happen, the court did not address the issue in depth.

The court did preserve Clark’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. On appeal, Clark claimed that his counsel was ineffective in that it failed to “object to constitutional issues or question the authenticity of the prosecution’s exhibits presented throughout the prosecution’s case in chief.” The court noted that in order to meet the burden to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, Clark must prove that his trial counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and that this failure resulted in prejudice.

“Attorney action (or inaction) caused by improvident trial strategy, miscalculated tactics, or mistakes in judgment does not necessarily amount to ineffective assistance of counsel,” the Court said in their ruling.

The court also noted that tactical decisions by attorneys typically need to be examined within the context of the totality of the circumstances on a case-by-case basis, often times resulting in the court preserving the claim for post conviction proceedings so that record can be more fully developed.

“We find the record before us is not sufficient to address Clark’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We do not have the disputed search warrant nor the application presented to the court in the record before us. We also do not

have the benefit of any testimony or evidence as to why Clark’s attorney neither filed a motion to suppress evidence in anticipation of trial nor objected to the evidence when it was presented at trial,” the Court said in their ruling.

The Court did, however, preserve the ineffective assistance of counsel claim so that Clark’s trial counsel may be given the opportunity to defend himself and his tactic at trial.

Clark’s appeal is not yet done. Clark can file a request for further review with the Iowa Supreme Court, however the high court grants very few further review petitions. If the high court denies a potential request for further review application from Clark, he could file a post conviction relief petition in Mahaska County District Court to address the ineffective assistance of counsel claim and argue for a new trial.

Posted by on Apr 28 2016. Filed under Local News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Comments are closed

         

Search Archive

Search by Date
Search by Category
Search with Google
Log in | Copyright by Oskaloosa News