Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 25-0660 Filed August 19, 2026 _______________ Ricardauris Dupree Robinson, Applicant–Appellant, v. State of Iowa, Respondent–Appellee. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, The Honorable Kellyann M. Lekar, Judge. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Christopher Kragnes Sr. of Kragnes & Associates, P.C., West Des Moines, attorney for appellant. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Aaron Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, attorneys for appellee. _______________ Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ. Opinion by Ahlers, J. 1 AHLERS, Judge. Ricardauris Robinson pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery under the “dangerous weapon” alternative after he and another man used a handgun to steal money from a convenience store. See Iowa Code § 711.2 (2018) (defining robbery in the first degree to include a robbery committed while armed with a dangerous weapon). Soon after, Robinson filed an application for postconviction relief (PCR) claiming his plea counsel was ineffective for allowing Robinson to plead guilty to a crime for which there was no factual basis. Specifically, he argues the gun used in the robbery was a BB gun, so there is no factual basis supporting his guilty plea to the “dangerous weapon” alternative of first-degree robbery. The district court denied the application, and Robinson appeals. We review PCR applications claiming ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. Trane v. State, 16 N.W.3d 683, 692 (Iowa 2025). An applicant claiming ineffective assistance must prove plea counsel failed to perform an essential duty and prejudice resulted. Id. “Counsel fails to perform an essential duty when he or she allows the defendant to plead guilty to a charge for which a factual basis does not exist. ʻPrejudice is inherent in such a case.’” State v. Ross, 941 N.W.2d 341, 346 (Iowa 2020) (citations omitted). As the PCR applicant, Robinson bears the burden of proving that his counsel was ineffective, which includes overcoming a presumption of effective assistance. Trane, 16 N.W.3d at 692. As noted, Robinson claims his plea counsel was ineffective by permitting him to plead guilty to first-degree robbery when the gun used in the robbery was a BB gun rather than a firearm. The problem with Robinson’s claim is that it is rebutted by the PCR record— both in terms of what evidence was presented and what evidence was not presented. 2 We’ll start with the evidence presented. The PCR record includes videos that clearly show the display of a silver gun during the robbery. The record also includes the transcript of the plea hearing. That transcript shows that the district court informed Robinson that the State would have to establish that he (or the other man he aided and abetted) was armed with a dangerous weapon and that a handgun is, by definition, a dangerous weapon. See Iowa Code § 702.7 (defining “dangerous weapon” to include a revolver, pistol, or other firearm). Robinson confirmed that he understood that to be guilty of the crime, he (or the other man) would have to have been armed with a dangerous weapon, specifically a handgun, and he then admitted three separate times that a handgun was used in the robbery. See Dewberry v. State, No. 14-1198, 2015 WL 7567514, at *3–4 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2015) (finding a defendant’s admission that a pellet gun met the definition of dangerous weapon provided a sufficient factual basis for his guilty plea to first-degree robbery using a dangerous weapon). He never said a word about the gun being a BB gun. Robinson also admitted he had discussed defenses with his attorney and that he understood that by pleading guilty he waived any possible defenses. The PCR record also includes the testimony of Robinson’s plea counsel. Counsel testified that he did not recall any discussion about a BB gun or about a BB gun “being a critical issue in our defense.” Robinson points to the minutes of testimony that are part of the PCR record. The minutes include a report of a law enforcement officer who interviewed Robinson’s paramour around the time of the robbery. She told the officer that the gun used in the robbery was a BB gun she had given to the other man involved in the robbery. 3 This statement by Robinson’s paramour leads us to our discussion about the evidence not presented at the PCR trial. Of note, despite his reliance on the vague statement of his paramour about the gun used in the robbery being a BB gun, Robinson presented no evidence to that effect. He didn’t testify that the gun used was a BB gun, nor did he call his accomplice or his paramour to provide such evidence. Nor did Robinson present any evidence that he ever told his plea counsel that the gun used in the robbery was a BB gun to prompt an investigation of that issue. Based on our de novo review, we find that Robinson failed to meet his burden to prove that his plea counsel failed to perform an essential duty by permitting Robinson to plead guilty to first-degree robbery under the dangerous-weapon alternative. In reaching this conclusion, we find Robinson’s reliance on State v. Allen to be misplaced. No. 07-1969, 2008 WL 2902166 (Iowa Ct. App. July 30, 2008). First, in Allen, “[n]o inquiry was made by the district court about the type or nature of the handgun” involved in a robbery. Id. at *3. In contrast, during Robinson’s plea hearing, Robinson confirmed he understood that to be guilty of the offense he (or the other man) had to be armed with a dangerous weapon, and that included a handgun. Robinson then confirmed that a handgun was used in the robbery. So discussion was had regarding the nature of the weapon used. Second, Allen involved evaluation of an ineffective-assistance-of- counsel claim on direct appeal. Id. at *1. As such, when the court determined that no factual basis existed for the plea, it remanded the case to the district court to give the State the opportunity to establish a factual basis. Id. at *3. In contrast, Robinson’s case comes to us as an appeal in a PCR proceeding with a fully developed record. Robinson had the opportunity to present 4 evidence of his counsel’s alleged shortcomings, and counsel had the opportunity to provide information about how his representation of Robinson transpired. Despite this opportunity, Robinson relies on his paramour’s statement to police that she gave Robinson’s accomplice a BB gun. That evidence is insufficient to meet his burden of proving ineffective assistance in the face of his admissions on the record and the lack of evidence showing he raised the issue with his plea counsel. See Trane, 16 N.W.3d at 692 (placing the burden on the PCR applicant to show ineffective assistance); see also Rhoades v. State, 848 N.W.2d 22, 29 (Iowa 2014) (“[W]e do not require the record to show the totality of evidence necessary to support a guilty conviction, but only that the record demonstrates the facts to support the elements of the offense.” (cleaned up)). The evidence presented establishes that Robinson admitted use of a handgun in the robbery, he presented no evidence that the gun used was a BB gun rather than a firearm, and despite discussing possible defenses with counsel, there is no evidence he ever raised the issue with his plea counsel. And, as noted above, we find Allen distinguishable. As such, we reiterate that Robinson failed to meet his burden of proving that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and we affirm dismissal of his PCR application. AFFIRMED. 5