IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 18-2134 Filed February 5, 2020

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RONALD SKYLAR STEENHOEK, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Stephen A. Owen, District Associate Judge.

Ronald Steenhoek appeals his conviction for assault causing bodily injury.

AFFIRMED.

Joel Baxter of Wild, Baxter & Sand, P.C., Guthrie Center, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Zachary Miller, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ.

BOWER, Chief Judge.

Ronald Steenhoek entered a written plea of guilty to the charge of assault causing bodily injury. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the State dismissed an additional charge of first-degree burglary. Steenhoek appeals, claiming trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file a motion to dismiss the trial information because it did not give adequate notice concerning the burglary charge and in failing to take depositions.1 He also contends the district court should have altered his cash-only bond.

We review ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims de novo. State v. Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488, 494 (Iowa 2012) To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a claimant must satisfy the Strickland test by showing (1) counsel failed to perform an essential duty; and (2) prejudice resulted.”[2] Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction . . . resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable. Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Here, because the minutes of testimony provide adequate notice that Steenhoek’s presence in the residence was without the occupant’s permission,3

there was sufficient notice “to alert [Steenhoek] generally to the source and nature of the evidence against him.” State v. Lord, 341 N.W.2d 741, 742 (Iowa 1983) (citation omitted). Therefore, any motion to dismiss the trial information would have been without merit.4 See State v. Grice, 515 N.W.2d 20, 22 (Iowa 1994) (“The purpose of an indictment or information is to apprise the defendant of the crime charged so that the defendant may have the opportunity to prepare a defense.”). Because counsel had no duty to make a meritless claim, this ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim fails. See State v. Carroll, 767 N.W.2d 638, 645 (Iowa 2009) (stating “counsel has no duty to pursue a meritless issue”).

The record before us in inadequate to consider Steenhoek’s claim concerning counsel’s failure to take depositions.5 We therefore preserve the claim for possible postconviction relief. See id. at 646.

AFFIRMED.