STATE v. FAISON (2021)

Court of Appeals of Iowa.2021-08-18No. No. 19-1619

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed Faison's conviction, holding that the jury instruction issue was not preserved because it was not raised in the trial court, and that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim cannot be reviewed on direct appeal under Iowa Code section 814.7 but must instead be raised in postconviction relief proceedings.

Alfonson Faison Jr. was convicted of domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury and appealed, claiming the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that he had no duty to retreat as part of his justification defense. He also argued his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the jury instructions. The appellate court found that Faison did not raise the jury instruction issue in the trial court, and therefore the error was not preserved. A notice of appeal alone does not preserve an issue for review; the party must raise the problem during trial and obtain a ruling from the trial court. Faison attempted to circumvent this by framing his argument as ineffective assistance of counsel, but state law requires such claims to be brought in separate postconviction proceedings rather than on direct appeal when the conviction became final after the law's effective date.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether failure to instruct jury on duty-to-retreat doctrine constitutes reversible error
Whether notice of appeal alone preserves trial court errors for appellate review
Whether ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be raised on direct appeal versus postconviction proceedings

Procedural posture

Faison appealed his jury conviction for domestic abuse assault, asserting that the trial court failed to instruct the jury regarding no duty to retreat and that trial counsel was ineffective.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Alfonson Faison Jr. appeals his conviction for domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury following a July 6, 2019 jury verdict. He asserts the district courts failure to instruct that there is no duty to retreat is reversible error and argues trial counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the jury instructions regarding his justification defense.

Although Faison argues the district court failed to instruct that there is no duty to retreat, he did not raise this instruction issue to the district court. Faison argues error was preserved by timely filing of the notice of appeal.

While this is a common statement in briefs, it is erroneous, for the notice of appeal has nothing to do with error preservation. In fact, the two concepts are mutually exclusive. As a general rule, the error preservation rules require a party to raise an issue in the trial court and obtain a ruling from the trial court.

State v. Erwin, No. 18-0523, 2018 WL 6706247, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2018) (quoting Thomas A. Mayes & Anuradha Vaitheswaran, Error Preservation in Civil Appeals in Iowa: Perspectives on Present Practice, 55 Drake L. Rev. 39, 48 (2006) (footnotes omitted)); accord State v. Lange, 831 N.W.2d 844, 846–47 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013). The jury-instruction issue is not preserved for review.

Faison thus argues counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the jury instructions. As of July 1, 2019, Iowa Code section 814.7 “requires claims of ineffective assistance of counsel be first filed in ‘an application for postconviction relief pursuant to chapter 822’ rather than asserted on direct appeal” and “prohibits claims of ineffective assistance of counsel from being decided on direct appeal.” State v. Tucker, 959 N.W.2d 140, 151 (Iowa 2021). Because Faisons conviction was final after the legislations effective date, his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel “must be resolved in the first instance in postconviction-relief proceedings rather than on direct appeal.” Id. at 153. Section 814.7 precludes our consideration of Faisons ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. We affirm.

AFFIRMED.

BOWER, Chief Judge.