Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 9-039 / 07-1971 Filed March 11, 2009

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MICHAEL KENNEDY FORD, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Bruce Zager, Judge. A defendant appeals following his convictions of two counts of forgery as a habitual offender and third-degree theft. AFFIRMED.

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and E. Frank Rivera, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Jean C. Pettinger, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and James Katcher, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.

2 VOGEL, P.J. Following a jury trial, Michael Ford was convicted of two counts of forgery as a habitual offender in violation of Iowa Code sections 715A.2(1)(c), 715A.2(2)(a)(3), and 902.8 (2007) and third-degree theft in violation of Iowa Code sections 714.1(1), 714.1(3), 714.1(6), and 714.2(3). On appeal, he raises several vague ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims and asserts that his convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence. We review Fords ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims de novo. State v. Martin, 704 N.W.2d 665, 668 (Iowa 2005). In order to show ineffective

assistance of counsel, a defendant is required to prove that (1) counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and (2) prejudice resulted. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 693 (1984). Ford, through counsel and pro se, argues that his trial counsel failed to object to several hearsay statements and object to evidence admitted in violation of the motion in limine ruling. However, Ford does not point to what specific statements he asserts are hearsay. See Dunbar v. State, 515 N.W.2d 12, 15 (Iowa 1994) (stating a defendant must "state the specific ways in which counsels performance was inadequate and identify how competent representation probably would have changed the outcome"). Further, even giving Ford the

benefit of the doubt that the State may have minimally overstepped the ruling on the motion in limine, by introducing evidence that police officers made efforts to contact Ford and those efforts were unsuccessful, Ford cannot show prejudice from the alleged violation. See Martin, 626 N.W.2d at 669 (citing State v. Liddell,

3 672 N.W.2d 805, 809 (Iowa 2003) (recognizing failure to prove either prong of test is fatal to ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim)). Ford also asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to offer a written statement from Fords fiance

Download STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff - Appellee, vs. MICHAEL KENNEDY FORD , Defenda nt -

Iowa Law