Andrew George Thomas, Applicant–Appellant, v. State of Iowa, Respondent–Appellee. (2026)

Andrew Thomas was charged with felony domestic abuse assault after an altercation in his girlfriend's apartment left her with face and neck injuries photographed by first responders. At trial, Thomas testified that his girlfriend became violent when he took away her cell phone and that he never punched or strangled her. The jury rejected that story. But it agreed with Thomas's argument that the State failed to show he was a member of his girlfriend's household. It returned a guilty verdict on the lesser-included offense of assault causing bodily injury.¹ We affirmed that conviction on direct appeal. State v. Thomas, No. 22-1746, 2024 WL 960916, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2024).

Thomas soon commenced this postconviction-relief case, asserting (among other claims no longer at issue) that he was convicted in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Thomas contends his defense attorney “failed to meet with him enough” to develop a defense strategy and “failed to properly prepare him for his trial testimony.” However, at the postconviction-relief trial, defense counsel testified that he met with Thomas multiple times, advised him of the risks of taking the stand, and talked with Thomas about his version of the events. The district court credited counsel's testimony and denied Thomas's application.

Thomas now challenges the court's findings that he proved neither the breach of duty nor prejudice elements of his ineffective-assistance claim. See Smith v. State, 7 N.W.3d 723, 726 (Iowa 2024) (noting a “failure to prove either element” defeats a claim for ineffective assistance). We see no reason to disturb these conclusions. Even on de novo review, we give weight to the district court's credibility findings. See Trane v. State, 16 N.W.3d 683, 692 (Iowa 2025). And here, defense counsel's testimony is consistent with the record made at the criminal trial, where Thomas confirmed he had been advised about his right to testify and the risks of taking the stand. See Shivers v. State, No. 24-2046, 2026 WL 1020665, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2026) (finding an applicant's after-the-fact allegations about his decision not to testify were undermined by the trial record).

Thomas also fails to explain how more preparation or advice would have changed his defense strategy, much less the outcome of his trial. He speculates that if counsel had “properly worked with [him] throughout the pendency of the case, he may have asserted his right to remain silent.” But we are left to guess what Thomas thinks he shouldn't have said and how his silence might have tipped the balance of the evidence. Cf. State v. Hart, 966 N.W.2d 304, 310 (Iowa Ct. App. 2021) (finding prejudice where applicant showed his improperly elicited testimony strengthened the State's proof “in what was otherwise a less-than-clear case”).

Because Thomas has failed to prove breach or prejudice, we affirm the denial of relief on his claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We decline to reach his separate allegations of ineffective assistance by postconviction counsel. Thomas suggests there is an “open ․ possibility” that his court-appointed lawyer failed to plead alternative grounds for relief in this case—but he does not specify the undeveloped grounds. Rather than trying to resolve his skeletal claim on an incomplete record, we leave it for Thomas to pursue in a subsequent application, should he so choose. See Goode v. State, 920 N.W.2d 520, 527 (Iowa 2018).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The jury also acquitted Thomas on a separate charge of child endangerment.

Opinion by Badding, J.