Brandon Gerard Hatchett v. State of Iowa
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.
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
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.