Brandon Gerard Hatchett v. State of Iowa

CourtCourt of Appeals of Iowa
DecidedApril 23, 2025
Docket24-0743
StatusPublished

This text of Brandon Gerard Hatchett v. State of Iowa (Brandon Gerard Hatchett v. State of Iowa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brandon Gerard Hatchett v. State of Iowa, (iowactapp 2025).

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0743 Filed April 23, 2025

BRANDON GERARD HATCHETT, Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Patrick R. Grady,

Judge.

An applicant appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief.

AFFIRMED.

Thomas M. McIntee, Williamsburg, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Olivia D. Brooks, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and

Buller, JJ. 2

BADDING, Judge.

While on parole for a different offense, Brandon Hatchett pled guilty to first-

degree harassment. His parole was then revoked. Hatchett pursued

postconviction relief from the harassment conviction, alleging defense counsel was

ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress. The district court denied the

application, finding that even if counsel “violated a fundamental duty by not filing a

motion to suppress, Hatchett has failed to show he was prejudiced.” On appeal,

Hatchett does not challenge that ruling. Instead, he raises two new ineffective-

assistance claims that allege defense counsel (1) pressured him to plead guilty;

and (2) failed to inform him of “his substantial exposure to parole revocation.”

We agree with the State that Hatchett failed to raise these claims, and the

district court did not decide them. At the trial on Hatchett’s application for

postconviction relief, his attorney clearly stated: “[T]he only issue we are going to

be raising today is the failure to file a motion to suppress as discussed in the trial

brief.” We accordingly find that Hatchett failed to preserve error on both claims,

Ruiz v. State, ___ N.W.3d ___, ___, 2025 WL 806962, at *3 (Iowa 2025), and

affirm without further opinion, see Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a)(e).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brandon Gerard Hatchett v. State of Iowa, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brandon-gerard-hatchett-v-state-of-iowa-iowactapp-2025.