Post-conviction relief denied for CR man serving 25 years for sexual abuse

DES MOINES – The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed denial of post conviction relief for a Cedar Rapids man convicted of third-degree sexual abuse in 2004, ruling his argument of ineffective counsel wouldn't have changed the verdict.

Daniel King, 30, of Cedar Rapids, was 22 when he was convicted for having sex with a 15-year-old in 2004. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison because he had a prior conviction for assault with intent to commit sexual abuse.

King, argues for further review of the court of appeals decision to deny his post-conviction relief, that his attorney didn't attack the DNA evidence offered by the state, according to the ruling. A Cedar Rapids Police officer collected clothing from the victim April 25, 2004 and placed it all in one bag and left it unsealed. The unsealed bag was then placed in the trunk of a police car and then taken to the department.

The sexual assault kit and the bag of clothing wasn't sent to the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation lab until June 2 for testing, according to the ruling. The criminologist  found seminal fluid on the victim's panties and from her neck area that contained King's DNA. The vaginal slides from the rape kit also had seminal fluid with sperm but a DNA profile couldn't be developed.

King's DNA expert didn't testify at trial but King's mother contacted him after the conviction and the expert took another look at the lab report and questioned the clothing items being placed in one bag, according to the ruling. He also suggested there was possibility of cross-contamination because of the lack of seminal fluid and a “bigger probability” that King wasn't the source of the fluid.

In King's post-conviction action he claimed his attorney was ineffective for failing to raise the cross contamination issue but the district court ruled it was the expert who failed to notice the problem with evidence. It wasn't the attorney's error.

King also claimed his attorney didn't offer additional witnesses to contradict the victim's testimony and failed to present evidence  of the victim's possible motives to accuse King os rape.

The court ruled these issues were minor and wouldn't have affected the outcome of the trial.