IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 21-1864 Filed July 13, 2023 CARLOS RAFAEL NAVARRETTE, Applicant-Appellant, vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Stuart Werling, Judge. An applicant appeals the denial of his postconviction-relief application. AFFIRMED. Thomas Hurd of the Law Office of Thomas Hurd, PLC, Des Moines, for appellant. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Sheryl Soich, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ. 2 SCHUMACHER, Presiding Judge. Carlos Navarrette appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief (PCR) application. He claims his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate the possibility of certain defenses and in failing to obtain an expert witness. We find Navarrette’s trial counsel did not breach an essential duty. Accordingly, we affirm. I. Background Facts & Proceedings Navarrette was charged with four counts of second-degree sex abuse and one count of lascivious acts with a child in 2013. The charges stemmed from sexual abuse Navarrette committed against two children, A.N. and C.N., between 2010 and 2012. The children made allegations of sexual abuse perpetrated by Navarrette to their mother, police, and Dr. Barbara Harre, a child abuse pediatrician and director of the Davenport Child Protection Response Center. Navarrette’s trial counsel focused on a theory that the children were coached by their mother, who was angry with Navarrette for having a second family at the same time that he was dating the mother. Navarrette’s counsel hired Tina Flaherty, a licensed independent social worker, to review the children’s interview with Dr. Harre. Trial counsel tasked Flaherty with determining whether the interview process complied with forensic interviewing techniques. While Navarrette’s counsel did not plan to hire Flaherty as an expert witness,1 he hoped the report would shed light on whether it would be worthwhile to hire an expert. In her report, Flaherty noted some technical errors in the interview but ultimately found the errors were too minor to undermine the reliability of the children’s 1Navarrette’s counsel knew Flaherty personally and believed that fact could be used to undermine her credibility as an expert witness. 3 statements. As a result, Navarrette’s counsel did not obtain an expert witness on issues related to the reliability of the children’s statements. A bench trial was held in 2014. Consistent with counsel’s prior strategy, the defense focused on a theme of the mother coaching the children. The defense presented no witnesses but offered text messages showing the mother of the children was upset with Navarrette around the time the allegations surfaced. While defense counsel did interview the potential witnesses suggested by Navarrette, none of the three testified, either because of immigration concerns or because the information they possessed was irrelevant. The district court found Navarrette guilty on all charges. In doing so, the court expressly found the children credible. The court elaborated: The court found the victims’ testimony extremely credible for many reasons. Their mother testified they did not want to be alone with the defendant, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals