IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-1414
Filed December 3, 2025
WILLIAM EDGAR BURTON III,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg,
Judge.
William Burton appeals the district court’s denial of his application for
postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
Jamie Hunter of Dickey, Campbell & Sahag Law Firm, PLC, Des Moines,
for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Zachary Miller, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., Badding, J., and
Bower, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2025).
2
BOWER, Senior Judge.
William Burton appeals the district court’s denial of his application for
postconviction relief (PCR) following his 2019 conviction for second-degree
murder. Burton asserts six claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Upon
our review, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
“William Burton shot and killed Cory Channon in Channon’s home.” State
v. Burton, No. 19-1754, 2021 WL 2453365, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. June 16, 2021).
The shooting took place after Burton “demanded Channon return a handgun he
claimed Channon had stolen from him.” Id. “Over several hours, the two
exchanged text messages that became increasingly profane and threatening.” Id.
Burton and his girlfriend, Crystal Purdy, devised a plan for Purdy to tell Channon
she had been kicked out of Burton’s home. Id. Channon took the bait, and he
“invited her to come to his place.” Id.
Burton—armed with a gun and a neighbor who came along as “muscle in
case anything went bad”—followed Purdy into Channon’s home shortly after she
arrived.1 Id. With his gun “at his side,” Burton “demanded Channon return his
handgun. As Channon began to stand up [from the couch], Burton raised his
handgun and with its laser sight activated shot Channon. Channon fell back onto
the couch. Burton, Purdy, and [the neighbor] then drove away.” Id.
1 On the drive to Channon’s home, Burton told Purdy “[s]omeone is going to die
tonight.” Burton, 2021 WL 2453365, at *1.
3
The State charged Burton with first-degree murder.2 Burton pled not guilty
and raised a justification defense, claiming “he had a permit to carry a concealed
weapon and, when Channon ‘charged’ at him, he reasonably feared for his life and
shot Channon in self-defense.” See id. at *2. The case proceeded to trial, and the
jury found Burton guilty of the lesser-included offense of murder in the second
degree. Id. at *6. Burton appealed, claiming:
(1) the court erred in denying his motion for mistrial based on juror
misconduct, (2) the court abused its discretion in admitting three
irrelevant and unduly prejudicial photos of Burton’s home, (3) the
court abused its discretion in allowing Croy to testify,[3] (4) by limiting
Burton’s testimony about Channon’s violent prior acts, the court
denied him the right to adequately present his defense, (5) there is
insufficient evidence to support the verdict, and (6) the court erred in
instructing the jury it could infer malice aforethought from use of a
dangerous weapon.
Id. The court rejected Burton’s claims and affirmed his conviction.
Burton filed a PCR application, raising various claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel. Following the PCR trial, at which Burton and others
testified, the district court denied the application. Burton appeals.
II. Standard of Review
“We ordinarily review PCR rulings for correction of errors at law.” Brooks v.
State, 975 N.W.2d 444, 445 (Iowa Ct. App. 2022). “However, when the applicant
asserts claims of a constitutional nature, our review is de novo.” Ledezma v. State,
2 The State also charged Purdy with murder. She “entered into a plea agreement and testified at Burton’s trial.” Burton, 2021 WL 2453365, at *2. 3 Mikayla Croy testified she stayed at Burton’s “trap house” for several weeks
before Channon’s death because she was homeless. Burton, 2021 WL 2453365, at *4. Croy testified they “all used [methamphetamine] together” and Burton became “very aggressive” when he used. See id.
4
626 N.W.2d 134, 141 (Iowa 2011). Accordingly, “we review claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel de novo.” Id.
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Burton must show
“(1) counsel failed to perform an essential duty and (2) prejudice resulted.” State
v. Keller, 760 N.W.2d 451, 452 (Iowa 2009) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). However, “[i]f the claim lacks prejudice, it can be decided
on that ground alone without deciding whether the attorney performed deficiently.”
Ledezma, 626 N.W.2d at 142.
III. Discussion
Burton raises six ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims on appeal. We
address his claims in turn.
First, he argues his trial counsel “was ineffective for failing to preserve error
and object to a mistrial based [solely] on the district court’s ex parte
communications with the jury foreperson.” Here, Burton maintains “[t]rial counsel’s
failure to include the ex parte communication in Burton’s request for a mistrial was
a breach of an essential duty” requiring reversal. According to Burton, “[p]rejudice
is presumed.” However, because this claim is in a PCR proceeding, Burton is
required to show prejudice. Smith v. State, 7 N.W.3d 723, 730 (Iowa 2024) (“[A]
showing of constitutional prejudice is required even where prejudice would have
been presumed if error had been preserved. This is due to the fundamental
distinction between claims involving preserved error and unpreserved error.”
(internal citation omitted)). Because Burton does not otherwise allege prejudice,
we decline to consider this claim.
5
Second, Burton claims trial counsel failed to adequately object to Croy’s
testimony. Burton argues Croy’s testimony “was not relevant, prejudicial, and full
of prior bad acts.” Much of Croy’s testimony Burton argues was prejudicial
concerned Burton’s use of methamphetamine. Because of this, Burton asserts,
“[a]ll of these accusations paint[ed him] as a bad, scary person, prompting the jury
to decide the case on an improper basis.” Despite Burton’s argument, the jury was
made aware Burton used methamphetamine through other evidence which was
not challenged at trial. Burton, 2021 WL 2453365, at *12. And as this court held
on direct appeal, the evidence was not unfairly prejudicial to Burton. Id. (“We agree
the State presented sufficient evidence Burton’s aggressiveness under the
influence was admissible for the purpose of intent, motive, absence of mistake, or
lack of accident.”). We concur. Burton’s claim is unpersuasive.
Third, Burton argues trial counsel failed to object to the admissibility of
evidence regarding his drug use. Here, Burton asserts, “[t]he jury was likely to
punish [him] for being an intravenous meth user who ran a trap house—none of
which had any relevance to whether the shooting was in self-defense.” Because
Burton claimed self-defense at trial, he would have had no duty to retreat if he was
not engaged in an illegal activity. See Iowa Code § 704.1(3) (2018). On this issue,
the court held on direct appeal:
We agree the State presented sufficient evidence Burton’s
aggressiveness under the influence was admissible for the purpose
of intent, motive, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. The trial
court . . . carefully considered Burton’s reliance on his claim he was
“[a] person who [was] not engaged in illegal activity” with no duty to
retreat, as well as the State’s burden in showing Burton was not
justified in shooting Channon.
6
Burton, 2021 WL 2453365, at *12 (all but first alteration in original). The court
found such evidence was properly admitted, and we concur. Burton’s claim must
fail.
Fourth, Burton asserts trial counsel failed to preserve error on the violation
of his constitutional right to present a defense. Specifically, Burton claims he “had
knowledge of specific instances of Channon’s aggressive and violent character but
was prevented from testifying to most of it.” We determine Burton was able to
testify to some issues of Channon’s aggressive nature, but the court properly
limited his testimony. Much of testimony he wished to give was based on
speculation and rumor. On direct appeal, the court held Burton’s right to present
his defense was not violated, finding Burton “has no actual knowledge of this
purported conduct: he only states Channon told him.” Id. at *13. As the court
determined, “None of the proposed testimony falls within allowable evidence under
Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.405. The trial court properly analyzed the proposed
testimony under the [holding in State v. Williams, 929 N.W.2d 621 (Iowa 2019)],
and we find no error.” Id. at *13; see Williams, 929 N.W.2d at 636 (holding “a
defendant asserting self-defense or justification may not prove the victim’s
aggressive or violent character by specific conduct of the victim unless the conduct
was previously known to the defendant”). As this underlying claim was already
rejected on direct appeal, Burton’s claim fails.
Fifth, Burton argues trial counsel failed to properly object to Crystal Purdy’s
testimony. Burton first argues, “Purdy should have been cross-examined in her
reasonable fear that Channon was going to harm Burton or herself. If she denied
it, she should have been impeached[.]” Burton further argues trial counsel “failed
7
to question Purdy about her motives for changing her story and testifying against
Burton once she knew he was not the father of her child[.]” On this issue, the PCR
court found: “It has not been demonstrated there was any deficiency in [trial
counsel’s] cross-examination of Purdy and, if so, how it was prejudicial to Burton.”
We concur. We affirm the court’s denial of this claim.
Lastly, Burton claims trial counsel failed to present evidence regarding his
habit of carrying a gun. While Burton himself testified about his gun ownership, he
argues “it was important for the jury to hear about [his] habit of carrying a gun from
someone other than [himself].” Burton wanted his mother Sharon Burton to testify
about his long-term use of guns for hunting and target practice. She was not
called. It appears from a subsequent deposition of Ms. Burton her testimony would
have been duplicative. Thus, Burton concludes, “when considering the sheer
volume of prejudicial and improper evidence the jury was exposed to, [he] did not
receive his constitutional right to a free trial.”
Under these facts and circumstances, we believe either the merits of
Burton’s underlying claims have already been rejected or any alleged deficiency
by counsel did not affect the outcome of Burton’s trial. As this court noted on direct
appeal, there was “overwhelming evidence of Burton’s guilt.” Burton, 2021 WL
2453365, at *11. Burton has not shown “there is a reasonable probability that, but
for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been
different.” Ledezma, 626 N.W.2d at 143 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694).
Accordingly, Burton’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel fail. We affirm the
court’s denial of his PCR application.
AFFIRMED.