Wour Nathanial Magang, Applicant–Appellant, v. State of Iowa, Respondent–Appellee. (2026)

Wour Magang was convicted of robbery in the second degree and burglary in the first degree stemming from his participation in a home invasion. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Magang, No. 21-1535, 2023 WL 1809816 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2023).

Magang then filed this postconviction-relief (PCR) action claiming: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to investigate and present testimony from witnesses to undermine the State's identification evidence and (2) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue Magang's claim that the jury pool was tainted by the trial court's actions when dismissing a prospective juror for cause. The district court rejected Magang's claims, and Magang appeals.

Because ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are rooted in the constitutional right to counsel, our review is de novo. State v. Lopez, 907 N.W.2d 112, 116 (Iowa 2018). To prevail on his claims, Magang has the burden to prove that “(1) counsel failed to perform an essential duty and (2) prejudice resulted from” the failure. See Hall v. State, 360 N.W.2d 836, 838 (Iowa 1985). Magang also must overcome the presumption that counsel acted competently. See Sothman v. State, 967 N.W.2d 512, 522 (Iowa 2021).

Magang did not meet his burden of proving that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to investigate and present testimony from witnesses to undermine the State's identification evidence. Magang presented no evidence of who those individuals were, what they knew, or what their testimony would have been had his attorney more thoroughly investigated them and called them as witnesses. As such, Magang failed to establish that his counsel failed to perform an essential duty or that he was prejudiced as a result, so his claim fails. See Nichol v. State, 309 N.W.2d 468, 470 (Iowa 1981) (noting “complaints about failure to call witnesses should be accompanied by a showing their testimony would have been beneficial”).

Magang's claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel fails for a similar reason. Magang presented no evidence about his appellate counsel's decision-making process, how that process constituted a failure to perform an essential duty, or that he was prejudiced as a result. Without such evidence, Magang has not met his burden of establishing that his appellate counsel was ineffective, so we reject his claim.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.