from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Timothy J.
applicant, Michael Young, appeals the dismissal of his
applications for postconviction relief based on statute of
Michael Young, Cody, Wyoming, pro se appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Tabor, J., and Blane, S.J.
Young appeals the dismissal of his four applications for
postconviction relief. Because we agree with the district
court that Young's applications were filed beyond the
statute of limitations, we affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background.
February 6, 2013, Young was stopped by an officer and charged
with four separate motor vehicle violations. Following a trial
before a magistrate, he was convicted and sentenced on
October 23, 2013. Young timely filed a notice of appeal. As
these were simple misdemeanors, the appeal was to the
district court and assigned to a district associate judge.
See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.73(3). By written ruling
filed on November 27, 2013, the appeals were denied and the
convictions and sentences were affirmed.
then filed with the Iowa Supreme Court an application for
discretionary review of the district associate court's
appeal ruling affirming his convictions. The application was
denied on January 31, 2014, by order signed by a single
justice. On February 11, 2014, Young filed a petition for
rehearing pursuant to Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure
6.1205(1). On February 17, 2014, procedendo issued as to the
four cases. On May 8, 2014, three justices of the supreme
court addressed Young's petition for rehearing and issued
an order, which stated: "This court treats the petition
for rehearing as a motion to review the ruling of a single
justice under Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.1002(5)
(2009)." The order then stated: "[T]he order
denying the application for discretionary review is confirmed
as the order of this court." Young did not challenge the
issuance or timeliness of the procedendo in the criminal
proceedings or request that it be recalled.
4, 2017, Young filed four separate applications for
postconviction relief, one as to each of the four separate
convictions. On July 21, 2017, the State filed its
answer to Young's four applications. In the answer, the
State raised the affirmative defense of the statute of
limitations found in Iowa Code section 822.3 (2017). The
State also filed a motion for summary disposition and a
motion to dismiss the applications based upon
statute-of-limitations grounds. On July 31, Young filed his
resistance to the State's motion to dismiss, asserting
that the procedendo in his criminal appeals was erroneously
issued by the Clerk of the Supreme Court.
August 28, 2017, the district court held a hearing on
Young's applications as well as the State's motion to
dismiss, where Young personally appeared pro se. On September
14, the district court issued its ruling and determined that
Young had not established an exception to the statute of
limitation and that the State's motion to dismiss should
be granted. The court then went on to address the State's
motion for summary disposition and Young's postconviction
applications on their merits, deciding that the applications
should be denied as being without merit. Young appeals.
appeal, Young again contends that the Clerk of the Supreme
Court erred in issuing the procedendo and that his
applications for postconviction relief were therefore timely
filed. Postconviction relief proceedings are actions at law
and review of proceedings is ...