The Iowa Court of Appeals has rejected the appeal of a woman convicted of first-degree murder in the shooting death of her Early neighbor in 2001.

Tracey Richter, 50, formerly of Early, appealed the denial of her application for postconviction relief in her first-degree murder conviction in the death of Dustin Wehde, 20.

Richter maintains she shot Wehde in self-defense.

She wasn’t charged with first-degree murder until 2011, when a new prosecutor, Sac County Attorney Ben Smith, re-examined the case.

In her appeal, Richter argued that her defense counsel at trial, in addition to her attorneys on appeal, were ineffective.

Among her arguments were that her defense team at trial failed to point out an error on a model of Wehde’s body when discussing the shooting and that one of her attorneys should have withdrawn because she wanted to call them as a witness.

The Court of Appeals rejected all of her arguments and agreed with the lower court’s ruling.

In their written ruling, issued Wednesday, the appeals court judges highlighted why they rejected Richter’s arguments.

Regarding the error on the model of Wehde’s body, a blue dot had been placed on Wehde’s right shoulder as an exit wound, when the bullet actually exited through his left shoulder.

Richter argued that, while her defense team noticed the error, they didn’t bring it up until closing arguments, which are not to be used by the jurors to convict.

“Richter has not established a claim of ineffective assistance,” the court wrote. “First, while Richter is correct the exhibit showed an exit wound on the wrong shoulder, the exhibit was not introduced into evidence by the state. The reconstruction photo with the misplaced exit wound was actually offered into evidence by Richter’s counsel.”

Additionally, the court ruled that despite the error, it did not impact the testimony of the witness, Rodney Englert, a crime scene reconstruction expert called by the state.

“Englert’s testimony was based on his review of the entry and exit wounds as shown on the autopsy photographs,” the court wrote. “Englert correctly testified the bullet exited the left shoulder, which is contrary to the exhibit about which Richter complains.”

Richter also argued one of her attorneys should have withdrawn as her counsel, as they had knowledge of a pink notebook that was used as a major piece of evidence in the state’s case.

The notebook was found by investigators and the contents of it were kept secret.

In the notebook were references to Richter’s ex-husband, John Pitman.

“The state argued that the contents of the notebook, referring to Richter’s ex-husband and his detailed plans to have Richter and Bert (Pitman, Richter and John Pitman’s son) killed, came from Richter herself in an attempt to win the custody dispute over Bert,” the court wrote in a previous ruling.

However, the appeals court argued that Richter’s attorney did not need to testify, as other witnesses could have corroborated Richter’s story.

“Richter’s mother testified Richter learned of the notebook during the wrongful death action,” the appeals court wrote. “Trial counsel also was not a necessary witness because his testimony was immaterial to the relevant issue. The pink notebook was relevant to the prosecution’s case because Richter expressed knowledge of the contents of the pink notebook, which were never disclosed to the public.”

The appeals court added that Richter provided no evidence of ineffective counsel.

“Richter claims the cumulative effect of her assigned errors was prejudicial,” the court stated. “Because we find no merit to her allegations, there is no cumulative error.”

Richter was charged with first-degree murder in the summer of 2011, and her trial was held that fall in Fort Dodge due to a change of venue motion filed by her defense team.

She was convicted of first-degree murder after a trial that lasted two weeks and is now serving a life sentence.