Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kimpton v. State

Court of Appeals of Iowa

January 11, 2017

TYLER A. KIMPTON, Applicant-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee.

         Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Joel A. Dalrymple, Judge.

         Tyler Kimpton appeals the district court's dismissal of his postconviction-relief application. AFFIRMED.

          Jack E. Dusthimer, Davenport, for appellant.

          Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.

          Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.

          DOYLE, Judge.

         Tyler Kimpton appeals the district court's dismissal of his application for postconviction relief (PCR). We affirm.

         I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

         In March 2011, Tyler Kimpton pled guilty to second-degree robbery. He was sentenced to ten years in prison and, pursuant to Iowa Code section 902.12(5) (2009), is required to serve at least seventy percent of that sentence before he can be eligible for parole or work release. He did not appeal his conviction.

         Almost four years after entry of his guilty plea, Kimpton filed a pro-se PCR application requesting reconsideration of the mandatory-minimum aspect of his sentence. His application stated that the governor had "issued the courts to re-look at 'youthful' offenders sentences with [seventy percent] mandatorys [sic] or life. Those first to be looked at were those under [eighteen years old]. Questions are now raised to age [twenty-four]." Because he "was under the age of [twenty-four] . . . at the time of [his] conviction" and this was his "first felony and first time in prison, " he sought to have the seventy-percent mandatory-minimum aspect of his sentence lowered or dropped. He requested a hearing be set and PCR counsel be appointed to represent him.

         Thereafter, the State filed a motion to dismiss, asserting Kimpton's PCR application was time-barred pursuant to Iowa Code section 822.3 (2015), divesting the court of jurisdiction. The State also argued State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378, 400 (Iowa 2014), wherein the court held mandatory-minimum sentences automatically imposed on defendants for crimes committed as juveniles are "unconstitutional under the cruel and unusual punishment clause in article I, section 17 of [the Iowa] constitution, " was inapplicable to Kimpton's circumstances because Kimpton was twenty-two at the time he committed second-degree robbery. In response, Kimpton argued that Lyle should be extended to apply to "mentally challenged adult offenders" such as himself because "[t]here is a movement towards limiting mandatory incarcerations both for juvenile offenders and for those individuals who might be mentally challenged as adult offenders as is in this case with [Kimpton]." Kimpton asserted that the mandatory-minimum aspect of his sentence was unconstitutional on that basis and his sentence therefore illegal, exempting his claim from the statute of limitations set forth in Iowa Code chapter 822.

         Following a hearing, the district court entered its order dismissing Kimpton's PCR application based upon both the statute of limitations and the merits of Kimpton's claim. The court recognized Kimpton's attempt to "draw analogous results from mental incapacity to juveniles" but found the position was "currently not supported by Iowa law." The court concluded that the exception to the statute of limitations relating to grounds of fact or law that could not have been raised within the relevant time period was inapplicable.

         II. Discussion.

         Kimpton now appeals, arguing the district court erred in dismissing his PCR application on statute-of-limitations grounds, and he requests we reverse and remand the matter back to the district court for further "developments of the facts and legal basis." Though we ordinarily review challenges to the trial court's jurisdiction, including illegal-sentence claims, for the correction of errors at law, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.