Rodney C. Henricksen v. State of Iowa

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: May 7, 2025
• Docket: 24-1076
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-1076 Filed May 7, 2025

RODNEY C. HENRICKSEN, Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Christopher Kemp,

Judge.

An applicant for postconviction relief appeals the district court’s denial of his

application. AFFIRMED.

Karmen Anderson, Des Moines, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Zachary Miller, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy,

JJ. 2

SANDY, Judge.

After brutally assaulting and killing an unarmed and defenseless stranger at

a bar, Rodney Henricksen was convicted of second-degree murder. Henricksen

stated that he attacked the victim because the victim was heavily intoxicated and

“hitting on [his] wife.” Henricksen was sentenced to fifty years in prison with a

seventy-percent mandatory minimum. We affirmed his conviction on direct appeal.

See State v. Henricksen, No. 19-0890, 2020 WL 5229182, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App.

Sept. 2, 2020).

Henricksen then applied for postconviction relief (PCR), arguing his trial

counsel was ineffective in failing to (1) call his lip-reading expert to testify at trial,

(2) adequately prepare Henricksen and another witness for their testimony,

(3) adequately communicate regarding his case and trial strategies, such as a

justification defense, and (4) seek a mistrial based on Henricksen’s jail phone calls.

Following a hearing on the matter, the district court denied Henricksen’s petition in

its entirety.

Henricksen raises the same arguments on appeal—as well as an alternative

argument that PCR counsel was ineffective. The State called a lip-reading expert

that testified that a surveillance video showed Henricksen saying “I want to beat

him” prior to beating the victim. Henricksen’s trial counsel had also hired a lip-

reading expert, and Henricksen argues his trial counsel should have called that

expert to testify that the surveillance video was inconclusive. But Henricksen’s lip-

reading expert did not view the same high-quality version of the surveillance video

that the State’s witness viewed because his trial counsel feared his “expert would

come to the same conclusion as the State’s expert, if they had viewed the 3

enhanced surveillance video,” and Henricksen failed to “present[] any evidence . . .

as to what [his expert] would have actually testified to.”1

Henricksen also argues his trial counsel failed to properly communicate with

him, prepare him and another witness to testify. Yet “Henricksen testified at the

PCR trial that he met with his trial attorneys approximately ten times, and the

meetings typically lasted between one to two hours,” and “he never informed his

trial counsel that he was feeling anxious and unprepared.” And Henricksen “did

not submit any evidence” that the other witness felt she was unprepared to testify.

Henricksen additionally argues it was ineffective counsel for his trial counsel

to fail to assert the justification defense or argue that he committed a lesser-

included offense. Our court already concluded “Henricksen’s reliance on the

justification defense was unfounded,” Henricksen, 2020 WL 5229182, at *4, and

we concur with the State that there is a reasonable strategic argument to be made

“that making an alternative argument of guilty of a lesser offense would undermine

the justification defense.”

Henricksen lastly argues his counsel was ineffective in failing to request a

mistrial following the disclosure of recorded phone calls he made while in jail. The

calls were not exculpatory—“he just told anyone that he talked to on the phone

that he was innocent.” And trial counsel’s strategic decision to seek a new trial

1 Henricksen alternatively argues he received ineffective assistance of PCR counsel, contending PCR counsel “fail[ed] to obtain an expert witness to demonstrate what [his lip-reading expert] would have testified to.” The record is inadequate for us to address this issue, and we decline to resolve it in this appeal. See Goode v. State, 920 N.W.2d 520, 526 (Iowa 2018). 4

rather than a mistrial allowed Henricksen to seek an opportunity for acquittal from

the jury.

On our de novo review, State v. Lorenzo Baltazar, 935 N.W.2d 862, 868

(Iowa 2019), we agree with the district court that “Henricksen has not established

his trial counsel breached an essential duty,” and additionally, that “Henricksen

has failed to show prejudice resulted from any of the claimed breaches,” see

Krogmann v. State, 914 N.W.2d 293, 306 (Iowa 2018). Because we cannot

provide any better reasoning or analysis than that found in the district court’s

thorough and well-reasoned order, we affirm with this memorandum opinion. See

Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(d), (e).

AFFIRMED.