Huffman v. State

• Decision Date: 06 June 2018
• Docket Number: No. 16-2035,16-2035
• Parties: Blake Allen HUFFMAN, Applicant-Appellant, v. STATE of Iowa, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: Iowa Court of Appeals

919 N.W.2d 766 (Table)

Blake Allen HUFFMAN, Applicant-Appellant,
v.
STATE of Iowa, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-2035

Court of Appeals of Iowa.

Filed June 6, 2018

Chad R. Frese of Kaplan & Frese, LLP, Marshalltown, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Aaron J. Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.

MCDONALD, Judge.

Blake Huffman appeals from the denial of his application for postconviction relief. By way of background, Huffman was convicted of five counts of sexual abuse in the second degree, one count of sexual abuse in the third degree, and one count of assault with intent to commit sex abuse arising out of the abuse of two minors. On direct appeal, this court affirmed his convictions. See State v. Huffman , No. 14-1143, 2015 WL 5278980, at *9 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2015). More recently, this court affirmed the denial of Huffman’s motion for new trial, in which Huffman contended one of the victims recanted the abuse allegations. See State v. Huffman , No. 16-0980, 2017 WL 6513562, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2017) (affirming denial and explaining the witness did not recant but actually reasserted the allegations of abuse in a later deposition).

In this appeal, Huffman contends his trial counsel provided constitutionally deficient representation in failing to object to a single sentence in the testimony of a forensic interviewer that allegedly vouched for the credibility of the victims. To establish his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Huffman must establish that his trial counsel failed to perform an essential duty and that this failure resulted in prejudice. See State v. Westeen , 591 N.W.2d 203, 207 (Iowa 1999). To show a breach of an essential duty, Huffman must establish "the attorney performed below the standard demanded of a reasonably competent attorney." Ledezma v. State , 626 N.W.2d 134, 142 (Iowa 2001). The attorney’s performance is measured against "prevailing professional norms," and it is presumed the attorney performed competently. See id. The ultimate inquiry regarding prejudice is whether counsel’s...