from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, John M.
appeals from the district court's denial of his
application for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
Jeffrey L. Powell of The Law Office of Jeffrey L. Powell,
P.L.C., Washington, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ.
Bailey appeals from the district court's denial of his
application for postconviction relief (PCR).
filed his original application for PCR in May 2014; he then
amended the application in July 2014 and again in September
2015. He sought relief after a jury found him guilty of three
counts of delivery of a controlled substance (marijuana).
and the State agreed the matter would be submitted to the
district court on November 15, 2015, on briefs only without a
hearing. On October 23, Bailey filed both his brief in
support of his application and an appendix. The State filed
its response soon after with references to the appendix filed
by Bailey. Bailey then filed a reply brief.
district court considered five claims of ineffective
assistance of trial and appellate counsel and one claim that
the State had "violated the Applicant's due process
rights through spoiliation [sic] of exculpatory
evidence." It then issued a written ruling denying
Bailey's claims on the merits on November 20. In the
ruling, the court referred to the briefs submitted by the
parties but stated, "[N]either party filed the appendix
to which both parties refer in their briefs. The Court has
only the briefs to consider when reviewing the
Applicant's Second Amended Application" for PCR.
Both the State and Bailey agree that this statement by the
district court was in error.
Bailey filed a notice of appeal. He then filed a motion
asking our supreme court to remand the case "for further
proceedings with directions to the District Court to give a
full and fair consideration of the appendix." Our
supreme court denied the motion.
filed an appellate brief. He did not make any claims or
arguments regarding the merits of the district court's
ruling on his application. Nor did he specify in what respect
the appendix would have made a substantive difference in the
district court's ruling. Instead, he used his appellate
brief to reiterate his claim that his case should be remanded
to the district court for further proceedings. Our supreme
court transferred the case to us.
cannot consider the merits of Bailey's claims as
presented to the district court in his application for PCR.
Although we review constitutional issues raised in a PCR de
novo, Bailey has not raised any arguments or claims regarding
his underlying application. See Berryhill v. State,
603 N.W.2d 243, 244-45 (Iowa 1999); see also Iowa R.
App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3) (requiring the appellant's brief
to contain an "argument containing the appellant's
contentions and the reasons for them with citations to
authorities relied on" and stating failure to do so
"may be deemed waiver of that issue"). That leaves
only the issue of whether Bailey's case should be
remanded for further consideration by the ...