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.

Baker v. State

Court of Appeals of Iowa

May 3, 2017

HAYES ELBERT BAKER III, Applicant-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee.

         Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, John D. Ackerman, Judge.

         Hayes Baker III appeals the district court's summary disposition of his second postconviction-relief action.

          Matthew R. Metzgar of Rhinehart Law, P.C., Sioux City, for appellant.

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

          Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.

          DOYLE, Judge.

         Hayes Baker III appeals the district court's summary disposition of his second postconviction relief (PCR) action. Baker did not file his application within the three-year statute of limitations as provided in Iowa Code section 822.3 (2015). He contends the statute of limitations bar does not apply because of newly discovered evidence. We affirm the decision of the district court.

         In 2010, Baker was convicted of attempted burglary, burglary, assault, theft, domestic abuse assault, and possession of marijuana. His convictions were affirmed on appeal. State v. Baker, No. 10-2093, 2012 WL 170181, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2012). Procedendo issued March 20, 2012.

         Baker filed his first postconviction-relief action on April 18, 2012. He asserted his trial counsel was ineffective by, among other things, failing to call witnesses for his "permission" defense. The PCR court denied Baker's application, and this court affirmed on appeal. Baker v. State, No. 13-1387, 2014 WL 2885039, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. June 25, 2014). Procedendo issued July 24, 2014.

         Baker filed the present postconviction-relief action, his second, on August 21, 2015. He claims in his pro se application that, "There exists evidence of material facts, not previously presented or heard that required vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice." See Iowa Code § 822.2(1)(d). Specifically, he alleges, "My mental state was deteriorated, my lawyer failed to detect this, my PCR also failed to address this." As regarding the facts supporting his application, Baker states: "My behavior during and before trial, my demands and inconsistent behavior before my trial, refusing to meet with my counsel." The State moved for summary disposition, contending Baker's application was: (1) barred by the statute of limitations under section 822.3; (2) barred as repetitive under section 822.8; and (3) barred by claim preclusion. Baker resisted but did not dispute any of the facts set out in the State's motion, nor did Baker attach any affidavits. After a hearing, the PCR court granted the State's motion, finding:

There is no affidavit by the applicant (or any other person) which states that because of his medical condition he was (1) unable to communicate with his attorney regarding the case because of his condition; (2) unable to appreciate the charges due to his condition; or (3) unable to understand the proceedings. Having a mental illness by itself is not sufficient to generate a jury question on the issue of competency.
In addition there is no affidavit by [Baker] or anyone else that he was unable to discover in the exercise of due diligence his alleged incompetency at trial within three years of March 22, 2012.[1]
In fact, [Baker] filed his first PCR twenty-seven days after the issuance of procedendo. He alleged in his first PCR petition that his trial counsel was ineffective for failure to interview and call certain persons as witnesses at trial who could allegedly testify that [Baker] had permission to enter the subject residence. [Baker] had already been through the appeal of his criminal conviction.
On August 28, 2014, [Baker] testified at trial by phone wherein he discussed his claim that he gave his trial counsel the names of the prospective witnesses. Baker also testified that [trial counsel] only met with him one time prior to trial. The court denied [Baker]'s claim and found [Baker]'s testimony ...

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.