IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 18-2129 Filed August 5, 2020 NAPOLEON MBONYUNKIZA, Applicant-Appellant, vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge. The applicant appeals the denial of his postconviction-relief application. AFFIRMED. Agnes G. Warutere of Warutere Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Ankeny, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Doyle, J., and Potterfield, S.J.* *Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2020). 2 POTTERFIELD, Senior Judge. In 2010, Napoleon Mbonyunkiza was charged with sexual abuse in the third degree, neglect of a dependent person, and dependent adult abuse. He was arrested but then released from custody on bond. Before the date of his scheduled preliminary hearing, Mbonyunkiza fled to Uganda. The State later filed a trial information charging him with the additional crime of failure to appear. Mbonyunkiza returned to the United States in 2013, and in 2014 he pled guilty to all four charges against him. He was sentenced to a term of incarceration not to exceed thirty years. Mbonyunkiza filed a direct appeal, and we affirmed his convictions and sentences in State v. Mbonyunkiza, No. 14-1283, 2016 WL 7395720, at *9 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2016). In his application for postconviction relief (PCR), Mbonyunkiza alleged his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to properly inform him of all the adverse immigration consequences of pleading guilty.1 He also argued his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to properly inform him of his right to consular access prior to his guilty plea and now claims on appeal that his PCR counsel was ineffective in not presenting evidence to establish how Mbonyunkiza could have benefitted from such access to the Rwandan consulate. “Generally, an appeal from a denial of an application for [PCR] is reviewed for correction of errors at law.” Goode v. State, 920 N.W.2d 520, 523 (Iowa 2018). However, “[w]hen the applicant’s claims are of a constitutional nature, this court engages in a de novo review.” Lado v. State, 804 N.W.2d 248, 250 (Iowa 2011). 1Mbonyunkiza also raised other claims on PCR, which the district court ruled upon and denied. He does not challenge those rulings, so we do not address them. 3 An applicant’s right to effective assistance from counsel in PCR proceedings is statutory rather than constitutional, but we still apply a de novo review to a claim of ineffective assistance regarding PCR counsel. Id.; see also Goode, 920 N.W.2d at 523–24. Immigration Consequences. Mbonyunkiza maintains his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise him of all of the immigration consequences associated with his guilty pleas. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Mbonyunkiza has the burden to show “(1) counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and (2) prejudice resulted therefrom.” Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134, 141–42 (Iowa 2001). Counsel has a duty “to inform his or her client of all the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals