Shawn Davis v. State of Iowa

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-0104
Filed May 13, 2026
_______________

Shawn Davis,
Applicant–Appellant,
v.
State of Iowa,
Respondent–Appellee.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County,
The Honorable Michael D. Huppert, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Austin Jungblut of Parrish Kruidenier, L.L.P., Des Moines,
attorney for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and David Banta, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Badding, P.J., Sandy, J., and Vogel, S.J.
Opinion by Badding, P.J.

1
BADDING, Presiding Judge.

After a night of drinking with family, Shawn Davis stabbed and killed
his youngest brother—Preston Davis. At his jury trial for first-degree
murder, Shawn raised a justification defense. He alternatively argued that
“this was a crime of passion and it’s voluntary manslaughter rather than
murder.” The jury rejected both arguments and found Shawn guilty of
second-degree murder. We affirmed that conviction on direct appeal. See
State v. Davis, No. 19-0929, 2021 WL 616148, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 17,
2021).

Shawn applied for postconviction relief and claimed that trial counsel
was ineffective for failing to call witnesses to testify about his brother’s
“violent and aggressive behavior while intoxicated.” The district court
rejected this claim and dismissed Shawn’s application, concluding that he
failed to “establish[] he was prejudiced by not having this character evidence
placed before the jury.” Shawn appeals.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

In our opinion on direct appeal, we outlined the facts leading to
Shawn’s conviction:
In the early morning hours of August 5, 2017, after a night of
partying with extended family, Shawn and his brother, Preston, had a
physical altercation [at Shawn’s house]. Verbal bickering ramped up to
Shawn punching Preston in the face and Preston then throwing Shawn to
the ground. A third brother, Damon, pulled Preston off of Shawn. When
Shawn got up off the ground, he went into his house, grabbed a knife, went
back outside waving the knife over his head, and rushed toward Preston.
The three brothers had a brief scramble for the knife, but Shawn retained
it, stabbing at Preston and chasing Preston as he ran away. Preston ran
through Shawn’s backyard and jumped a fence. He collapsed in the
neighbor’s yard. Shawn turned around, went back into the house, and told

2
a cousin she ought to call the paramedics because “Preston is bleeding
out.” Shawn then went into the basement, stripped down to his underwear
and socks, threw his clothes into the washing machine, and took a shower.

Police responded to dispatch about a stabbing and arrived at
Shawn’s residence about 4:00 a.m. The first officer at the scene
encountered Preston’s wife, Crysteal, standing in the yard. She told the
officer her husband needed medical attention. When asked who had
stabbed her husband, she stated it was a “friend.” The officer asked if the
person was still at the scene. Crysteal hesitantly told them he was in the
house. Shawn was standing in the kitchen. He was cooperative when
ordered to the ground and placed in handcuffs. Officers “cleared” the
house. Shawn denied knowing anything about what was happening in his
back yard. He later stated his two brothers were fighting outside and he
had gone out and tried to break it up. Police found a bloody knife with a
seven-inch blade in the kitchen sink.

When emergency responders arrived they found Preston
unresponsive. An autopsy found three puncture wounds—two to the top
of Preston’s right shoulder that were not serious, but the third wound had
severed an artery, vein, and nerve bundle in Preston’s left arm, which
resulted in a severe loss of blood and death.

Id.

Providing more context to the fight, Crysteal testified at the criminal
trial that although Preston and Shawn had a good relationship, they could
“have their differences.” She explained that both were “very direct-type
people,” who did not “sugarcoat anything.” Although they “got along more
than they disagreed,” Crysteal had seen them argue before. But their
arguments were never physical until the night Preston died. Crysteal—who
was outside with the brothers when they were fighting—testified that after
Shawn punched Preston in the mouth, Preston “looked at him, shook his
head, and attempted to turn around.” She had “[n]ever seen him walk away
from anything” before. But as Preston was turning, Shawn charged at him.
Crysteal said that Preston charged back and pinned Shawn to the ground. A

3
cousin who witnessed the fight testified that when Preston was on top of
Shawn, he kept telling Shawn “he better be glad that he is his blood.”

Damon testified that after he pulled Preston off Shawn, he had never
seen Shawn so mad. Although Damon testified that he had been more
focused on Preston, he believed that Shawn must have gone into the house
while Preston and Crysteal were walking down the driveway to their car. A
cousin testified that when Shawn came into the kitchen, he grabbed a knife.
She talked him into giving her that knife but then he got a bigger one and went
back outside. Damon testified that when Shawn came out of the house, he
was holding a knife over his head and saying, “What’s up? What’s up?” like
he wanted to fight. Shawn ran toward Preston and Damon. All three brothers
scrambled for the knife until Shawn “got it loose” and stabbed Preston in the
shoulder.

Shawn told a somewhat similar story at his criminal trial, although in
his version, Preston was the aggressor. Like Crysteal, Shawn said that he and
Preston had a good relationship. But he also said that Preston “had a way of
saying little stuff” and would “just be slick,” especially when he was
drinking. Shawn testified Preston was acting that way the night of their fight
and “agitating” him. Both started “get[ting] heated” and “disrespecting
each other” while they were smoking cigarettes with Crysteal outside.
Shawn testified that as their argument escalated, Preston came toward him
aggressively. Feeling threatened, Shawn punched him in the face. Shawn
testified that Preston slammed him to the ground and started choking him.
He described this as “uncharted territory” because although he and Preston
had verbal disagreements, they had never physically fought before. Shawn
testified that he thought Preston wanted to kill him, and so he went into the
house and grabbed a knife to scare Preston away. But when he went outside,

4
Shawn said, Damon and Preston seized him. Shawn testified that the three
brothers wrestled with the knife and that Preston must have been stabbed
during the scuffle.

In his closing argument at the criminal trial, defense counsel
emphasized the relationship between Shawn and Preston: “They had a good
brother-to-brother relationship. There’s no question about it, that they got
along. And whatever happened here was completely out of character for both
of them and it got out of hand.” Against the backdrop of that loving
relationship, counsel argued that if the jury did not believe that Shawn acted
in self-defense, then they should only convict him of voluntary manslaughter.
In support of that argument, counsel insisted this was “a crime of irresistible
passion between two brothers who got into an argument that escalated and
then got out of hand. There was no other reason for Shawn to have wanted
to have his brother dead.” The jury didn’t buy these arguments and instead
found Shawn guilty of second-degree murder.

At the hearing on his application for postconviction relief, Shawn
complained that his defense attorneys failed “to bring out the dynamics
between” him and Preston. While Shawn said they had a good relationship
overall, he said it was sometimes toxic when they drank because Preston
became sarcastic and condescending. Shawn testified they had several
incidents leading up to the stabbing that became “aggressive” and
“combative,” although never physical. But he testified they “were close
several times.” According to Shawn, he gave his attorneys a list of witnesses
who would have testified about “Preston being very aggressive when he
became intoxicated.” However, Shawn maintained the attorneys told him
that those witnesses—who were not present when Preston was stabbed—
were irrelevant.

5
One of the uncalled witnesses was Joanna Davis, Shawn’s wife at the
time of the incident. She testified at the postconviction-relief hearing that
she had seen Preston act violently before. Joanna explained that Shawn and
Preston “always got along until there was drinking involved and then it just
seemed to get out of control where [she] would have to ask Preston to leave.”
She testified that although she saw Preston go after Shawn several times,
“they never actually were in a physical fight.” But then she contradicted
herself and said that she had witnessed them physically fighting. In any
event, Joanna testified that she, too, gave Shawn’s attorneys a list of witnesses
who also would have testified to encounters they “had with Preston due to
his nature, his character, especially when he would drink and just his violent,
aggressive attitude.”

None of these other witnesses testified at the postconviction-relief
hearing or provided affidavits to the district court. But Shawn’s
postconviction-relief counsel argued that if the evidence had been presented,
it would have shown “there was an impulsive hot button between these two
and I think that tends to negate the mens rea element necessary to convict of
second degree murder.” The court disagreed, finding that no prejudice
resulted from defense counsel’s failure to use the list of possible witnesses—
assuming one had been given to them.1 The court reasoned that evidence
about the brothers’ “contentious relationship” had been presented to the
jury through testimony from Crysteal and Shawn. More importantly,
according to the court, there was “overwhelming and virtually
uncontroverted evidence that Shawn’s behavior leading up to Preston’s death

1
Neither of Shawn’s attorneys remembered being provided a list of witnesses,
although they testified that if they had received one, they would have interviewed the
witnesses.

6
was inconsistent with either his claimed defense of justification or actions
consistent with voluntary manslaughter.”

Shawn appeals, claiming the district court erred in finding he was not
prejudiced by the failure to investigate and call character witnesses at trial.

II. Standard of Review

Postconviction-relief proceedings are ordinarily reviewed for
correction of errors at law. Sothman v. State, 967 N.W.2d 512, 522 (Iowa
2021). But when the application raises a constitutional claim, such as
ineffective assistance of counsel, we review the proceedings de novo. Id.

III. Analysis

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Shawn must
establish that (1) counsel failed to perform an essential duty and (2) prejudice
resulted. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); State v.
Lopez, 907 N.W.2d 112, 116 (Iowa 2018). We “may consider either the
prejudice prong or breach of duty first, and failure to find either one will
preclude relief.” State v. McNeal, 897 N.W.2d 697, 703 (Iowa 2017) (citation
omitted). Like the district court, we choose to resolve this case on the
prejudice prong.

On appeal, Shawn focuses on the prejudice “as it relates to establishing
his actions rose to a level no higher than manslaughter.” He claims that
because defense counsel failed to present his desired witnesses, the “jury did
not have the opportunity to hear a full view of who Preston was.” Shawn
argues that evidence would have helped to establish the serious provocation
needed for the lesser voluntary manslaughter conviction and “assist[ed] the
jury in understanding [his] reaction to the provocation.” See Iowa Code

7
§ 707.4 (2017) (defining the crime of voluntary manslaughter). The State
responds by arguing that no prejudice occurred because the evidence was
cumulative and its case was strong.2 We agree with the State on both points.

As noted by the State and the district court, the jury did hear testimony
from Shawn about Preston’s quarrelsome behavior when he was drinking:
And then Preston always has a way—or had a way of saying little
stuff. Like he would insinuate or—he would just be slick, especially when
he drinks, you know, and he just started doing that and it started an
argument.

....

Q. And then tell . . . the jury what happened. A. Well, after Preston
made his little comments he made, I said something and one thing led to
another and we started arguing.

Q. What was the comment that he made, if you remember?
A. About him being the boss and being the honcho and stuff like that. He
just—he says stuff like that.

Q. And had he made that statement before? A. No, but he said
other things in the past that starts arguments, but that’s it.

2
The State also questions whether the evidence would have been admissible, as
did the district court in noting that “Shawn never testified that he himself was aware of
Preston’s tendencies toward violent or aggression when drinking.” See State v. Williams,
929 N.W.2d 621, 636 (Iowa 2019) (holding “that a defendant asserting self-defense or
justification may not prove the victim’s aggressive or violent character by specific conduct
of the victim unless the conduct was previously known to the defendant”). And because
Shawn’s argument on appeal focuses only on his heat-of-passion defense, we note that this
court has found that whether a victim “previously engaged in violent acts does not bear
on whether” a murder was “the ʻresult of [a] sudden, violent, and irresistible passion.’”
State v. Spellman, No. 13-1670, 2015 WL 799538, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2015)
(quoting Iowa Code § 707.4)). We need not dive into this issue, however, because we agree
with the State’s other arguments on prejudice.

8
Crysteal also testified that while it was typical for Shawn and Preston
to get into verbal arguments, she had never seen those fights turn physical.
She had, however, seen Preston and Damon get into physical fights. Crysteal
testified that Preston was “someone that [didn’t] take anything from
anybody” and that “if someone is going to do something to him, he’s going
to respond”—like he had in the past with Damon. She said that after Shawn
punched Preston in the mouth, it was the “first time ever in the fifteen years
[she was] with him that he took anything from anybody, including family.”

Joanna and Shawn’s general testimony at the postconviction-relief
hearing that Preston “was an aggressive and violent person particularly when
he was intoxicated” would not have added anything to the testimony that was
already before the jury about Preston’s character. And the “withholding of
cumulative testimony is not a sufficient showing of prejudice.” Schrier v.
State, 347 N.W.2d 657, 664 (Iowa 1984).

Beyond the cumulative nature of the testimony, we agree with the
district court that Shawn failed to establish prejudice because of the
“overwhelming and virtually uncontroverted evidence that Shawn’s
behavior leading up to Preston’s death was inconsistent with . . . voluntary
manslaughter.” To prove prejudice, “[t]he defendant must show that there
is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the
result of the proceeding would have been different.” Smith v. State, 7 N.W.3d
723, 727 (Iowa 2024) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694). In other words,
“was the likelihood that the omission impacted the trial great enough to
ʻundermine confidence’ in the outcome?” Gomez v. State, No. 19-1297, 2021
WL 210759, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2021).

9
Given Shawn’s conduct on the night of the stabbing, we conclude the
answer is no. As we found on direct appeal,
There is no evidence Preston approached the house after Shawn went
inside. There is no evidence it was necessary for Shawn to arm himself for
protection when Preston was outside and half-way down the driveway. In
addition, Shawn testified he was not afraid when he left the house with the
knife. It was Shawn who approached Preston as he was leaving.

Davis, 2021 WL 616148, at *7 (internal citation omitted). We find no
reasonable probability that the omission of evidence about Preston’s
character from witnesses who were not present the night of the stabbing
would have changed the outcome of the trial.

For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial of Shawn’s
application for postconviction relief.

AFFIRMED.

10