from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Paul D. Scott,
Kelly appeals the summary dismissal of his
postconviction-relief application. AFFIRMED.
Randall L. Jackson of Law Office of Randall L. Jackson, Des
Moines, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Potterfield, J., and Scott,
12, 2015, the district court imposed sentence on Ronald
Kelly's conviction of second-degree robbery. Kelly was
sentenced to an indeterminate term of incarceration not to
exceed ten years, with a mandatory minimum of seven years. In
September 2016, Kelly filed an application for postconviction
relief (PCR), arguing equal protection requires his sentence
to be reconsidered in light of the legislature's recent
amendment of Iowa Code section 902.12 (2016). The State moved
for summary dismissal, contending the amendment to section
902.12 could only be applied prospectively. Kelly resisted
summary dismissal, arguing the different treatment resulting
from the legislative amendment violates equal protection and
the amendment should be applied retroactively. The district
court granted the State's motion for summary dismissal,
concluding the new statute does not apply retroactively. The
court did not address Kelly's equal-protection claim.
appeals. He contends the district court erred in finding no
genuine issue of material fact pertaining to his claim the
sentence imposed upon his underlying conviction was
unconstitutional as in violation of his right to equal
protection. He specifically argues that all individuals
serving a sentence for the crime of second-degree robbery are
similarly situated, but individuals who are convicted of the
crime before July 1, 2016 are treated differently for parole
and work-release purposes than individuals who are convicted
on or after July 1, 2016, and such different treatment
violates equal protection.
from the outset our agreement with the State that Kelly
failed to preserve error on the claim he raises on appeal, as
the district court never ruled upon Kelly's
equal-protection claim and Kelly thereafter failed to request
a ruling on the issue. See Meier v. Senecaut, 641
N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002) ("It is a fundamental
doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be
both raised and decided by the district court before we will
decide them on appeal. . . . When a district court fails to
rule on an issue properly raised by a party, the party who
raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in
order to preserve error for appeal.").
event, a panel of this court recently considered and rejected
an argument identical to Kelly's, that "a person
convicted of second-degree robbery prior to July 1, 2016, is
similarly situated to any person convicted of second-degree
robbery on or after July 1, 2016, " and equal protection
requires such individuals "to be treated alike under the
amendment to section 902.12." See generally Clayton
v. Dist. Ct., 907 N.W.2d 824, 825-30 (Iowa Ct. App.
2017), further review denied (Jan. 16, 2018) We
agree with Clayton and affirm the summary dismissal
of Kelly's PCR application without further opinion
pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(c) and (e).
Senior judge assigned by order
pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 ...