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.

Jones v. State

Court of Appeals of Iowa

September 13, 2017

MICHAEL NAVARRO JONES, Applicant-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee.

         Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, George L. Stigler, Judge.

         An applicant appeals the district court decision dismissing his petition for postconviction relief on the ground it was untimely.

          Christopher R. Kemp of Kemp & Sease, Des Moines, for appellant.

          Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.

          Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.

          BOWER, JUDGE

         Michael Jones appeals the district court decision dismissing his petition for postconviction relief on the ground it was untimely. We find Jones did not preserve error on his claim the clerk of court exceeded the clerk's duties and find his application for postconviction relief is untimely. We find Jones is not entitled to relief on his pro se issues. We affirm the decision of the district court.

         I. Background Facts & Proceedings

         Jones was convicted of robbery in the first degree and being a felon in possession of a firearm, as a habitual offender, in violation of Iowa Code sections 711.2, 724.26, and 902.8 (2007). His convictions were affirmed on appeal. State v. Jones, No. 08-1917, 2009 WL 4842500, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2009). Procedendo was issued on February 17, 2010.

         Jones's first application for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, was denied. The district court's decision was affirmed on appeal. See Jones v. State, No. 11-1033, 2012 WL 3590334, at *7 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2012).

         On February 11, 2013, Jones filed his second application for postconviction relief, PCCV120985. The State filed a motion to dismiss on the ground the issues raised in the second application had already been decided in the ruling on the first application for postconviction relief. After a hearing, the district court entered a decision on December 3, 2013, granting the motion to dismiss, stating the issues raised in the second application were barred by the doctrine of res judicata and the application was untimely under section 822.3. The order stated Jones participated in the hearing by telephone.

         On January 8, 2016, Jones filed what he captioned as an amendment to his application for postconviction relief in PCCV120985. The county clerk's office crossed out PCCV120985, wrote in PCCV128894, and treated the matter as a new application for postconviction relief. The State filed a motion to dismiss, claiming Jones's third application for postconviction relief was time barred under section 822.3. Jones resisted the State's motion, stating he never received the court's ruling dismissing his second postconviction application.

         A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on August 29, 2016. Jones testified he did not participate in a hearing on his second postconviction application. He stated he was never notified of the hearing or the court's ruling. He testified if he had known of the dismissal he would have appealed. The district court entered a ruling that day, granting the motion. The court found Jones's testimony he did not participate in the hearing on the second postconviction application was not credible, and as a result, the court also found he was not credible in his statement he did not receive the dismissal of his second postconviction application. The court determined Jones did not timely appeal the order dismissing his second postconviction application. The court concluded the third postconviction application was untimely under the three-year statute of limitations found in section 822.3. Jones now appeals the decision of the district court.

         II. ...


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.