Charles Dean White v. State of Iowa

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 24-1564
Filed March 11, 2026
_______________

Charles Dean White,
Applicant–Appellant,
v.
State of Iowa,
Respondent–Appellee.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Page County,
The Honorable Craig M. Dreismeier, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Allan M. Richards, Tama, attorney for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Adam Kenworthy, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.
Opinion by Chicchelly, P.J.

1
CHICCHELLY, Presiding Judge.

Charles White appeals the denial of his application for postconviction
relief (PCR). He alleges ineffective assistance of his PCR counsel. Because
we find White’s ineffective-assistance claims were not preserved, and even if
they had been preserved we would reject them on the merits, we affirm the
district court’s denial of his application for PCR.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Charles White was convicted by a jury in April 2012 of three counts of
second-degree sexual abuse, in violation of Iowa Code sections 709.1 and
709.3(2) (2009), and one count of lascivious acts with a child, in violation of
section 709.8. On direct appeal, a panel of our court affirmed his convictions.
See State v. White, No. 12-1256, 2013 WL 4504896, at *7 (Iowa Ct. App.
Aug. 21, 2013).

In 2014, White filed his first PCR action, asserting
ineffective-assistance claims against his trial counsel. The district court
granted summary judgment to the State, but on appeal our court reversed
and remanded for further proceedings on a single issue. See White v. State,
No. 15-1492, 2016 WL 4054000, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. July 27, 2016). After
trial on remand, the PCR court again denied relief, and we affirmed,
concluding counsel was not ineffective for not impeaching the complaining
witness with her deposition testimony, and declining to consider for the first
time on appeal other theories not developed in the PCR trial. See White v.
State, No. 18–1466, 2020 WL 376548, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2020).

White then filed this PCR action alleging “PCR counsel breached an
essential duty by failing to call an expert to testify at the PCR trial and the
original trial to impeach the alleged victim.” Following a bench trial, the

2
district court denied the application, concluding White failed to prove
ineffective assistance of counsel. White now appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Generally, we review the denial of an application for PCR for the
correction of errors at law. See Perez v. State, 816 N.W.2d 354, 356
(Iowa 2012). But because ineffective assistance-of-counsel claims implicate
constitutional issues, our review is de novo. Goode v. State, 920 N.W.2d 520,
523 (Iowa 2018).

ANALYSIS
White argues his PCR counsel was ineffective for failing to present
expert testimony to impeach a child witness and asserts a due process
violation. To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, White
must satisfy the two-prong test that (1) his counsel’s performance was
deficient and (2) such failure prejudiced his defense. See Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). For the first prong, “we begin with
the presumption that the attorney performed competently.” Ledezma v.
State, 626 N.W.2d 134, 142 (Iowa 2001). To overcome this presumption,
White must prove “counsel’s representation [fell] below an objective
standard of reasonableness.” Lado v. State, 804 N.W.2d 248, 251 (Iowa 2011)
(quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688). For the second prong, he “must prove
ʻa reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the
result of the proceeding would have been different.’” Id. (quoting Strickland,
466 U.S. at 694).

But first, the State contests error preservation. It is well-established
that an issue must be both raised and decided by the district court before it is

3
eligible for appellate review. 1 See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537
(Iowa 2002). When the district court does not rule on a properly presented
issue, the party asserting the claim must file a motion seeking a ruling to
preserve error for appeal. Id.

We also generally do not resolve claims of ineffective assistance of
postconviction counsel on appeal from the denial of PCR. Such claims
ordinarily require a developed record, and the narrow exception permitting
review applies only when the record is adequate and consideration would not
prejudice either party. See Goode, 920 N.W.2d at 526. When that exception
does not apply, the proper remedy is to raise the claim in a separate
postconviction proceeding. Id. at 527. Our court has consistently applied
Goode and declined to speculate on undeveloped records or assessing
counsel’s performance without giving them an opportunity for explanation.
See, e.g., Boyd v. State, No. 24-0145, 2025 WL 2237406, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App.
Aug. 6, 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); Spellman v. State, No. 22-0499, 2024
WL 1551158, at *3–4 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 10, 2024). Consistent with Goode,
we find White’s claim regarding postconviction counsel’s effectiveness was
not preserved.

But even if we were to reach the merits, we would find White’s claim
to still fail. To establish ineffective assistance, an applicant must show

1
Abiding by this stricture, we do not address the statute of limitations in Iowa
Code section 822.3 that would otherwise apply to this action; the district court did not
rule on the original motion to dismiss on that basis and the State did not renew its motion
at trial. See King v. State, No. 22-0929, 2023 WL 3856426, at *1 n.1 (Iowa Ct. App.
June 7, 2023) (observing it was not appropriate to review the relevant statute of limitations
when not argued in or addressed by the district court).

4
counsel failed to perform an essential duty and that this failure resulted in
prejudice. See State v. Davis, 951 N.W.2d 8, 16 (Iowa 2020). White argues
PCR counsel breached an essential duty by not presenting an expert witness
to impeach the child victim by addressing her reliability, explaining
inconsistencies in her testimony, or opining on potential coaching by the
State—and that such testimony would have established trial counsel was
ineffective by not presenting the same impeaching testimony. Even if he did
present an expert witness, Iowa courts have held that an expert cannot
comment directly or indirectly on the credibility of a victim in a criminal
sexual-abuse case. See State v. Dudley, 856 N.W.2d 668, 676 (Iowa 2014).
Determining witness credibility rests with the factfinder, and credibility is not
a fact subject to expert opinion. Id. at 676-77. As a result, an expert likely
could not have provided the testimony White envisions. See id.

Because the evidence White contends should have been presented was
likely inadmissible, he cannot demonstrate prejudice resulting from its
absence. If 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. Because White cannot establish prejudice, we affirm the
district’s denial of his application for PCR.

AFFIRMED.

5