State of Iowa v. James Charles Null
This text of State of Iowa v. James Charles Null (State of Iowa v. James Charles Null) 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. 15-0464 Filed February 10, 2016
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JAMES CHARLES NULL, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Peter B. Newell,
District Associate Judge.
The defendant challenges his conviction for failure to comply with the sex
offender registry, second or subsequent offense. AFFIRMED.
David A. Kuehner of Eggert, Erb, Mulcahy & Kuehner, P.L.L.C., Charles
City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ. 2
MCDONALD, Judge.
The defendant James Null was convicted of failure to comply with the sex
offender registry, second or subsequent offense, in violation of Iowa Code
sections 692A.2, 692A.3, and 692A.7(1) (2013), and sentenced as a habitual
offender pursuant to Iowa Code sections 902.8 and 902.9. On appeal, he
contends his trial counsel provided constitutionally deficient representation by
failing to interpose certain objections to the jury instructions. On de novo review,
we conclude the defendant’s claims are without merit. The defendant makes
only conclusory claims of prejudice insufficient to satisfy the prejudice component
of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See State v. Tate, 710 N.W.2d
237, 241 (Iowa 2006). We independently conclude that Null has failed to
establish prejudice, that is a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s
unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
Collins v. State, 588 N.W.2d 399, 402 (Iowa 1998); see also State v. Ambrose,
861 N.W.2d 550, 556 (Iowa 2015) (applying Strickland prejudice standard to
claim of instructional error). Null’s conviction is affirmed without further opinion.
See Iowa R. 21.26(1)(a), (c), and (e).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State of Iowa v. James Charles Null, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-iowa-v-james-charles-null-iowactapp-2016.