of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt were adequate clarifications of the challenged instructions. Id. Similar considerations exist in the present case. Instructions 6 and 8 clarify any issues involving the word “innocence” in Instructions 2, 4, and 5. Instruction 6 explains that the State has the burden to show the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Instruction 8 again provides that the burden is on the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and also defines reasonable doubt for the jury. Because Instructions 2, 4, and 5 were clarified by Instructions 6 and 8 and therefore were not prejudicial to the defendant, trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the instructions. See State v. Hochmuth, 585 N.W.2d 234, 238 (Iowa 1998) (<HOLDING>). We have considered all issues presented and
holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel holding that an attorney is not ineffective for failing to make a meritless objection holding that counsel was not deficient in failing to present a meritless argument holding trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless issue