from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D.
appeals the district court's decision denying his
application for postconviction relief on the ground it was
Christine E. Branstad of Branstad Law, P.L.L.C., Des Moines,
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., Potterfield, J., and Goodhue, S.J.
GOODHUE, SENIOR JUDGE.
Lee Brodene's sixth application for postconviction relief
(PCR) was dismissed pursuant to the State's motion for
summary disposition. Brodene appeals. We affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
was convicted of first-degree murder in 1990. Brodene
appealed, and the conviction was affirmed. State v.
Brodene (Brodene I), 493 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa
1992). Brodene has filed five previous requests for PCR. Each
has been denied, but the fourth PCR action was appealed and
is most relevant to the current one. See Brodene v.
State (Brodene III), No. 11-0837, 2012 WL
5356036 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2012). The facts concerning
the underlying crime are set out in the two appellate cases
cited and need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that
in Brodene I, our supreme court said that although
impeachment testimony offered by Brodene was erroneously
denied, it was considered a harmless error because
"other clear evidence overwhelmingly established
Brodene's guilt." 493 N.W.2d at 797. This sixth PCR
filed by Brodene was dismissed on the State's motion for
State does not contest error preservation.
trial court sustained the motion for summary judgment on the
basis there was no material factual dispute. The undisputed
facts reveal the three-year statute of limitations applicable
to PCR actions had run. In addition, the "all inclusive
grounds" requirement applicable to PCR proceedings makes
all subsequent PCR actions problematic, and the application
of res judicata as a bar to any issue previously resolved
further limits any claim Brodene can make. See Iowa
Code §§ 822.3, .8 (2015). The interpretation of the
applicable statutory provisions relating to PCR is for errors
of law. Kane v. State, 436 N.W.2d 624, 626 (Iowa