from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeffrey D.
Dowell appeals the district court's summary dismissal of
his application for postconviction relief.
C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa R. Wilson,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Bridget A. Chambers,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.
Dowell appeals the summary dismissal of his application for
postconviction relief (PCR). He claims the district court
erred in summarily dismissing his application, alleging there
are genuine issues of material fact regarding the
effectiveness of counsel in an earlier proceeding that
require an evidentiary hearing. Alternatively, he contends
his PCR counsel was ineffective in failing to amend his PCR
application. We affirm.
Background Facts and Proceedings
previously summarized the relevant facts and circumstances of
the underlying offense and early proceedings:
Dowell, who has three children, was convicted of several
crimes, including neglect of a dependent. The district court
entered a sentencing no-contact order restraining Dowell from
having any contact with his children. The order was to remain
in effect until July 15, 2013. Meanwhile, Dowell and his wife
divorced, Dowell's wife was granted sole custody of the
children, and she moved to Australia.
A day before the no-contact order was slated to expire, the
State filed a motion to extend it. See Iowa Code
§ 664A.8');">664A.8 (2013). At a hearing on the motion, the State
offered a report prepared by a psychologist who met with the
children. Dowell's attorney stated he had no objection to
The district court extended the no-contact order for an
additional five years after concluding Dowell failed to carry
his burden "to establish he no longer poses a threat to
State v. Dowell, No. 13-1269, 2015 WL 4158758, at *1
(Iowa Ct. App. July 9, 2015). This court affirmed
Dowell's direct appeal of the extension of the no-contact
order. See id. at *3. The Iowa Supreme Court denied
Dowell filed a pro-se PCR application in which he claimed he
received ineffective assistance of counsel in relation to the
hearing on the extension of the no-contact order. He
specifically complains counsel was ineffective in allowing
the psychological report concerning his children to be
admitted into evidence. In support of his PCR application,
Dowell referenced ...