Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Marlita A. Greve, Judge.
Marlin Jackson appeals from the dismissal of his action for postconviction relief.
Marlin Jackson, Anamosa, appellant pro se.
Steven J. Drahozal of Drahozal Law Office, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher Scott, Student Legal Intern, Michael J. Walton, County Attorney, and Amy Devine, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.
Marlin Jackson appeals from the dismissal of his second action for postconviction relief. We affirm, finding the district court correctly applied the three-year statute of limitations.
I. Facts and Proceedings.
Jackson was convicted of two counts of robbery in the second degree in 2005. His direct appeal from the convictions was dismissed as frivolous. He subsequently applied for postconviction relief; the application was denied following trial in 2009. The district court wrote a lengthy opinion, addressing each of Jackson's claims including those presented by counsel and those presented by Jackson pro se. Jackson appealed; our court addressed each of the ineffective assistance of counsel issues presented and affirmed the district court's denial of relief. Jackson v. State, No. 0 9–1388, 2010 WL 4867385 (Iowa Ct. App. November 24, 2010). Jackson again filed for postconviction relief in April of 2012, alleging his appellate postconviction counsel was ineffective and further facts had not been presented to the district court. The State moved for summary dismissal of the application, citing the three-year statute of limitations for postconviction relief actions.
The court scheduled hearing on the State's motion, instructed Jackson to call the courthouse from his correctional institution to participate in the hearing, and provided Jackson with a phone number. On the first scheduled date of the hearing, Jackson did not call the courthouse. The court re-set the hearing date at the request of Jackson's counsel. At the re-set hearing date, Jackson again did not call to participate. He was represented by counsel. The district court found Jackson's presence was unnecessary, as the motion was based on a purely legal issue: when the statute of limitations began to run on the application for postconviction relief. The district court granted the application to dismiss, finding Jackson's application was filed more than three years after the conviction. It rejected Jackson's argument that the three-year limitations period begins to run only after procedendo issued from the postconviction appeal. Jackson appeals, arguing dismissal was improper as to his ineffective assistance argument relating to his prior postconviction appeal, and that his counsel provided ineffective assistance in allowing the hearing on the motion to dismiss to proceed without his presence.
We review the dismissal of an action for postconviction relief for the correction of errors at law. Manning v. State, 654 N.W.2d 555, 560 (Iowa 2002). We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de ...