State v. Ondayog

Summary

The Iowa Supreme Court held that assault with intent to commit sexual abuse causing bodily injury was not a lesser-included offense of first-degree kidnapping or third-degree sexual abuse. Although the defendant’s trial counsel failed to object to the improper jury instruction and prejudice was shown, the court could not determine on the direct-appeal record whether the omission was a reasonable trial strategy. The court vacated the court of appeals decision, affirmed the district court judgment, and preserved the ineffective-assistance claim for postconviction relief proceedings.

Holdings

1. Assault with intent to commit sexual abuse causing bodily injury was not a lesser-included offense of first-degree kidnapping resulting in sexual abuse or third-degree sexual abuse because those greater offenses could be committed without bodily injury, an element of the assault offense.
2. A failure to object to a jury instruction does not bar an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim under ordinary error-preservation rules or the law-of-the-case doctrine.
3. Ondayog did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel on the existing record because, although the erroneous instruction caused prejudice, the record did not establish that counsel's failure to object was outside the range of reasonable professional assistance.

Questions Presented

1. Whether assault with intent to commit sexual abuse causing bodily injury was a lesser-included offense of first-degree kidnapping resulting in sexual abuse or third-degree sexual abuse.
2. Whether the failure to object to the erroneous lesser-included-offense instruction was insulated from review by the law-of-the-case doctrine and ordinary error-preservation rules.
3. Whether Ondayog established both deficient performance and prejudice sufficient to prevail on his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on direct appeal.
4. Whether the ineffective-assistance claim should be preserved for postconviction relief proceedings because the record did not establish whether counsel's failure to object was a reasonable trial strategy.

Disposition

vacated