Stephanie Lynn Knecht v. State of Iowa

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 24-2064
Filed April 1, 2026
_______________

Stephanie Lynn Knecht,
Applicant–Appellant,
v.
State of Iowa,
Respondent–Appellee.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County,
The Honorable Roger J. Sailer, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Allan M. Richards, Tama, attorney for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester, Assistant
Attorney General, attorneys for appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Chicchelly, P.J., Buller, J., and Doyle, S.J.
Opinion by Chicchelly, P.J.

1
CHICCHELLY, Presiding Judge.

Stephanie Knecht appeals the denial of her application for
postconviction relief (PCR) concerning her convictions for domestic abuse
assault and possession of a firearm by a domestic abuser. She alleges
ineffective assistance of counsel. 1 Because we find that Knecht did not
establish that her counsel failed to perform an essential duty nor that
prejudice resulted, we affirm.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
On January 8, 2023, Knecht was arrested pursuant to a complaint
charging domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury. The complaint further
alleged that Knecht had assaulted her father with whom she resided. The
next day, Knecht was informed that a no-contact order would be issued. The
district court judge entered a temporary no-contact order that indicated
Knecht could not possess, ship, transport, or receive any firearms. The form
also indicated that Knecht was personally served with a copy of the order.

On January 21, 2023, four days after an order was entered granting
Knecht pretrial release, Knecht was arrested again. A second complaint was
1
Knecht also raises an actual-innocence argument. To pursue her actual-
innocence claim, Knecht must “show by clear and convincing evidence that despite the
evidence of guilt supporting the conviction, no reasonable fact finder could convict the
applicant of the crimes for which the sentencing court found the applicant guilty in light
of all the evidence, including the newly discovered evidence.” See Schmidt v. State, 909
N.W.2d 778, 797 (Iowa 2018) (emphasis added) (highlighting throughout the analysis the
framework’s requirement of newly-discovered evidence.). Because Knecht claims actual
innocence in reliance upon an alibi defense that she was aware of at the time she had
signed the guilty plea, the newly-discovered evidence requirement is not met. Further,
because Knecht merely raises some issues of fact about what might or might not have
happened, she fails to support by clear and convincing evidence that a reasonable
factfinder would or could have found otherwise.

2
filed, alleging that she had violated the no-contact order by being at her
father’s home and that she was in possession of a firearm and marijuana at
the time. Knecht was then charged with two counts: (1) possession of a
firearm by a domestic abuser, and (2) possession of a controlled substance.

On February 23, 2023, Knecht filed a written waiver of rights and
guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement between her and the State that
allowed her to plead guilty to possession of a firearm by a domestic abuser in
exchange for a suspended prison term with two years of probation, a
suspended fine, and dismissal of the marijuana charge. Knecht’s plea was
accepted by the district court on February 24, 2023.

On June 2, 2023, Knecht initiated a postconviction-relief action by
filing an application setting forth ineffective assistance of counsel and actual
innocence in the underlying domestic-abuse-assault case as grounds for
relief. After the State responded to both the original action and a subsequent
amended action with a motion for summary judgment, Knecht again moved
to amend her application. Following a hearing held on March 5, 2024, the
district court granted Knecht’s motion to amend the application and denied
the State’s motion for summary judgment.

In March 2024, Knecht filed her own motion for partial summary
judgment, and the State filed a resistance to Knecht’s motion and renewed
its motion for summary judgment. The district court granted Knecht’s
motion for partial summary judgment and denied the State’s motion for
summary judgment. After a PCR trial, the district court denied Knecht’s
application. Knecht now appeals.

3
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review PCR proceedings for correction of errors at law. See Linn
v. State, 929 N.W.2d 717, 729 (Iowa 2019). However, because ineffective-
assistance-of-counsel claims implicate constitutional issues,2 our review is de
novo. See Goode v. State, 920 N.W.2d 520, 523–24 (Iowa 2018); see Moon v.
State, 911 N.W.2d 137, 142 (Iowa 2018).

DISCUSSION
Knecht’s sole argument on appeal is that her PCR trial counsel was
ineffective in presenting this PCR before the district court. Specifically,
Knecht contends her PCR counsel was ineffective for failing to call the
alleged victim at the PCR trial.3 Knecht asserts the failure of her counsel to
provide the testimony of the alleged victim was the breach of an essential
duty and resulted in the denial of her due process rights. Further, Knecht
argues that without the testimony, the Court did not get to see evidence of
her guilt and, therefore, could not know if she committed the act which she
had been found guilty of.

Ordinarily, we do not address issues presented for the first time on
appeal not previously raised and decided by the district court. See Meier v.
Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002). But our supreme court carved
out an exception where, in limited circumstances, we have authority to decide
ineffective-assistance claims related to postconviction counsel on

2
This consideration is also applicable to the extent Knecht’s claim of actual
innocence raises constitutional issues as well.
3
According to the PCR trial record, Knecht claimed that she never assaulted her
father and asserted that she had an alibi for the assault, stating she only pleaded guilty
because her mother was in the hospital. However, the PCR was devoid of proof as to what
the victim would have testified to and how it would have been favorable to Knecht’s claim.

4
postconviction appeal “when the appellate record is adequate.” See Goode v.
State, 920 N.W.2d 520, 526 (Iowa 2018).

Here, consistent with several of our prior decisions, we find the record
is not adequate to decide whether Knecht’s PCR counsel was ineffective.
See, e.g., Uranga v. State, No. 24-0196, 2025 WL 1324125, at *3 (Iowa Ct.
App. May 7, 2025), Ernst v. State, No. 23-1598, 2025 WL 271479, at *6 (Iowa
Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2025); Freese v. State, No. 23-0139, 2024 WL 2842312, at
*2 (Iowa Ct. App. June 5, 2024). Because reaching the merits of Knecht’s
claim would require us to read into an insufficient record, we affirm. See
Goode, 920 N.W.2d at 526–27. Instead, Knecht’s claims can be filed as a
separate application for postconviction relief in district court. Id. at 527.

DISPOSITION
Because the record is not sufficiently developed for our review, we
affirm the court’s denial of PCR.

AFFIRMED.

5