Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Michael J. Schilling, Judge.
An applicant appeals from the denial of his postconviction relief application.
Thomas Hurd of Glazebrook, Moe, Johnston & Hurd, L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Thomas H. Miller, Assistant Attorney General, Patrick C. Jackson, County Attorney, and Amy Beavers, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Bower, J., and Goodhue, S.J [*]
Applicant appeals from a ruling entered June 6, 2012, denying his request for postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Applicant pleaded guilty to possession of a precursor of methamphetamine. On June 27, 2005, the applicant was sentenced to a term not to exceed five years, but was granted probation. Subsequently the applicant pleaded guilty to a federal charge and was sentenced to a federal institution. The Iowa Department of Correctional Services filed a report of violations, and thereafter a detainer was filed based on the alleged probation violation. The applicant filed a notice of place of imprisonment and demand for final disposition of the report of violation. A court order was issued holding that the Interstate Agreement on Detention Act did not apply and that the outstanding warrant would remain active.
The applicant filed this request for postconviction relief on February 14, 2012. At that time he remained incarcerated in the federal institution where he was serving the sentence on the federal charge. The report of violations remained unresolved waiting his release. The possibility remains that on his release, probation will be revoked and the applicant will be faced with serving what he terms "consecutive sentences." The applicant alleges ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel's failure to advise him of the possibility of being required to serve "consecutive sentences."
The State asserts the three following defenses: (1) the applicant's claim is barred by the statute of limitations; (2) the applicant's claim of "consecutive sentences" is only a possibility at this point, and is therefore anticipatory, leaving the applicant without standing or prejudice to pursue his claim; and (3) counsel's alleged failure related to an indirect or collateral result of the applicant's plea of guilty, and therefore counsel had no duty to advise the applicant of the "consecutive sentence" that might be imposed.
II. Standard of Review
Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims raised in a postconviction relief proceeding are based on a statutory right, but because of the constitutional nature, are reviewed de novo. Lado v. State, 804 N.W.2d 248, 250 (Iowa 2011). The review of the State's statute-of-limitations defense is for ...