Background
Timothy Wood, who was serving a special lifetime parole sentence following his 2011 conviction for lascivious acts with a child, had his parole revoked in November 2022. The revocation followed multiple alleged violations, including Wood’s interactions with a sixteen-year-old coworker at a fast-food restaurant. Wood admitted he spoke with her, knew contact was not permitted, and did not report the contact to his parole officer until after a complaint was made.
Wood sought postconviction relief, alleging that his attorney at the revocation hearing failed to present evidence that he had verbal permission to communicate with minors for work-related purposes and failed to offer GPS and witness evidence concerning his whereabouts on September 5, 2022. The PCR court dismissed the application.
The Court’s Holding
The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed. Assuming without deciding that chapter 903B revocations are subject to postconviction-relief proceedings and that Wood had a right to effective counsel at the revocation hearing, the court held that Wood failed to establish prejudice under the ineffective-assistance standard.
Wood’s claimed work-related permission did not create a reasonable probability of a different result because he had admitted he knew his contact with the minor was wrong and delayed reporting it. His GPS evidence likewise would not have changed the outcome: although the minor misstated calendar dates, her account correctly identified the days of the week, and the GPS records corroborated Wood’s presence at the restaurant on the relevant Saturday and Sunday. Wood also admitted having the conversations with the minor.
Key Takeaways
- An ineffective-assistance claim fails without a reasonable probability that counsel’s alleged errors changed the result.
- A parolee’s admissions may defeat a prejudice showing even when counsel allegedly omitted potentially favorable evidence.
- Evidence addressing an incorrect calendar date does not establish prejudice where it confirms the relevant events occurred on the days described.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that PCR challenges to parole revocations require proof of outcome-changing prejudice, not merely a showing that counsel could have presented additional evidence. Here, Wood’s admissions and the corroborating GPS evidence meant the omitted proof would not have undermined the revocation decision.